http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10530417/

:rolleyes: No sir, you spying on your own citizens is a shameful act.

I concur. What the f*ck is happening with our country today!? This "Big Brother" crap's gotta go

It's for our safety against terrorists. They arnt going to be listening to see what you bought at the mall today, or what movie you just saw, their looking for terorists. Be glad their doing something about it so another 9/11 dosent happen. When 9/11 happened everyone says its Bush's fault because he didnt do enough to prevent it, now that he's doing something about so it dosent happen again its "shameful" I dont get it.

Spying in itself for National security purposes of course is no problem, even if it concerns citizens. Some citizens are criminals or terrorists and they need to be stopped.

The big issue in this case however is that the government service in question (wether it be NSA, CIA, FBI, Military, local police, etc) needs to get clearance from a judge first.

This has got to do with checks and balances, government control and upholding the law. Very important in an open and free democratic society, which is very vunurable.

In a totalitarian form of government these things don't matter for the government is the boss and the people mere peasants who need to back their leader and shut up.

In a free, democratic country however, it is very important that the law is not only respected by it's citizens but also (especially!) by the government.

This is why - in my humble opinion - Bush should not get away with retorics such as: "I am doing this to protect our Nation against terrorism and I will continue to do so" for it is up to an independent judge to decide, that's the law.

Same goes for Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib, etc where prisoners are not only tortured but also held without being accused of annything, without a chance to a proper defence, without a lawyer, etc.

I hope more people will start to see that these critisisms are just and that not all Bush critics are either Bush-Bashers or Left Wing Exttremists. Not making these comments would actually be unpatriotic and un-American is my opinion, being a Dutch citizen (please don't avoid the actual content of my case by raving about my Nationality).

If Bush would really want to help make the world a better, safer place and set an example as a free, democratic society he should start by following his own Nation's laws before trying to impose them on others. By not doing so he supplies ammo to the very enemies he claims to fight and helps make the world even more unsafe, for all of us.

They just had California Senator, Diane Feinstein on tv discussing this. Apparently a law was enacted in 2001 (the name of the law escapes me), in which the President, if necessary could get "emergency warrants" for this spying/wire-tapping within 24 to 72 hours of request, which of course Bush didn't do.

It's one thing to spy on terrorists, but if a President is allowed to "do as he pleases" in this regard, that's simply WRONG. I'll ask again, what happened to the rule of law?????? It simply doesn't apply I guess.

TIS

I think Bush has been born a few hundred years too late or in the wrong country.

No, that's what this administration wants you to believe. That's also how they're selling the war in Iraq. First we went in there because Saddam was responsible for 9/11, then weapons of mass destruction, we know that was all shit, so now it's the bullshit line: "we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to here". I like the statement made earlier about Bush being a better president in the 1700's when wars were actually fought at home. The last war fought on the home front was the one in Texas, and the Mexicans don't pose much as a threat anymore (when it comes to warfare, employment is another issue).

Just because you live the life of a schnook, doesn't mean it should be treated like one with the government looking over you shoulder. They have too much power as it is. Truthfully, when you break this whole system down, it's just another way of making white men feel safe. I shouldn't have to sacrifice my rights just because this country forgot how to handle a crises. Americans have a right to privacy, lets keep it that way.

Amen to that. i am not american, but i do feel that privacy is absolutely important. there is no reason that the president should invade anyones privacy. What next? that's the question everyone should be asking themselves.

Well said, DP. It's like everyone pointing to the 9-11 Commission findings that we're not "safe enough," and blaming Bush for that. The man tries to do something, and he's condemned for that, too. In case folks haven't noticed, it's necessarily a different world we live in since 9-11. How, then, I ask these folks, should we go about rooting out the terrorists? Ask them to please surrender themselves at the local F.B.I. office??

I found it very interesting that one of the KEY provisions due to expire in two weeks is one that former President Bill Clinton presented as the cornerstone of his response to the escalation of terrorism in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing. The measure allows roving wiretaps so that the FBI can tap all phones a suspect uses, rather than one specific number. Yet Hillary, who was such an advocate for this measure when her husband, then President, pushed so hard for it, is now voting against this same measure.


Don Cardi

To me, the problem is one of TRUST.

If I trusted our government, I'd have no problem with any of this.

Trouble is, I don't.

I know what they say they are using the wiretaps and eavesdropping for, but I don't really know if I believe them or not.

Conveniently forgotten that this came up on Clinton's watch in the first place. But it figures.

The issue is checks and balances.

Are we really willing to blindly trust an executive (even if you have/have not a GUT trust in him) who's just as human and just as corruptible by power as any of the rest of us; all it takes is for him to assure us that he'll protect us and it's for our own good and that's OK? We all belong to a system that is better than that.

The FISA court very rarely refuses warrant applications, and has done so only 4 times in 25 years, and I can't see them doing it at all after 9/11 if it wasn't for some very shady circumstances (and you can obtain a warrant AFTER initiating the surveillance if time constraints require it). Bush must have known they would have a problem obtaining the warrants for some reason (e.g. political reasons).

Again, I pose the question: How are we to find these terrorists and squash their operations? Everyone's so quick to criticize the method of security (and the man behind it), but no one has any better ideas, it seems. Yet, everyone still hollers that we're not safe enough. Can't have it both ways.

Yeah, since Terrorists are going to be running to the phone to talk casually about their plans to attack us. :rolleyes:

They've already prevented several planned attacks. Who's to say it's not working? Let's see, how many buildings have been blown up since 9-11...?? Hmmm. Obviously, they're doing something right.

Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al Qaeda by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.


(From an earlier thread, the NY Times article)

It is quite interesting to see the reactions here. The same people who chide President Bush and the wiretaps are those same members who were in disbelief in the Plame scandal, wondering how irresponsible people like Scooter Libby were in leaking national security secrets. Yet, in this instance, there is no concern whatsoever for the safety and security of this nation, only whether you trust Bush or not. Interesting.

First, I'd like to address Dennis Kucinich's comments regarding his comparisons between this scandal and Watergate. His purposeful neglect of the facts shows how inept this politician truly is. Not only are the circumstances wholly different, but so are the motives. Nixon wiretaps were designed to subvert the DNC, as well as serve his wholly paranoid mind and for personal interests. The wiretaps here, iniated by the National Security Agency (the domestic version of the CIA), are designed to protect our country. Not that I really care how Kucinich thinks, but I felt the need to address that. Considering how he virtually bankrupted Cleveland as their mayor, I take what he says with a miniscule grain of salt.

Secondly, ECHELON, the communications hub of the NSA, has been monitoring such things since the foundation of their mandate. The whole purpose of the National Security Agency is to collect data vital to protecting the nation. This isn't anything new, the OSS/CIA have been doing this internationally since the National Security Act of 1947 under President Truman. However, it wasn't until 1952 when Truman, by executive order, created the National Security Agency, designed strictly to collect data domestically. In this particular case, citing concerns over terrorism, there is an active investigation and monitoring of all communications dealing with countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, etc.

Third, I am surprised that the legal warrants were not obtained, since it appears that the FISA is designed to keep them quiet; that being said, I wouldn't doubt if the people being monitored weren't U.S. citizens (ala the 9/11 hijackers). However, it should be noted that FISA does not require a warrant if the parties involved are not U.S. citizens. this is key. Neither the New York Times nor any other sources have confirmed that these individuals are American citizens, and until they prove so, neither the NSA or President Bush have done anything outside of the law.

It really comes down to whether we trust our government, or Al Qaeda, more. Personally, what I find is shameful is a.) the rejection of the renewal of the Patriot Act and b.) the exposure of national security investigations that have now been completely compromised.

Also interesting to note is that the Patriot Act, which is mild compared to other goverments across the globe with regards to national security, utilizes many of the tools that have been used in the past to bring down organized crime, begging the question - why is it acceptable to take down John Gotti, but it violates civil liberties to take down people like Richard Reid?

Wholly concur with you, Snake. And the problem is that we can't have it both ways. Unfortunately, I suspect it will take another 9/11 or London Bombing here in America for some people to wake up.

Best,
Double-J

When you say trust what exactly do you mean? If your not talking about doing something that could threaten lives etc. then you have nothing to worry about. Im not arguing with you, I just want to see what you mean when you say you need to trust them. It's not like their going to expose a conversation to the public you had with you gf or something.

I think we did want him to do something prior to 9/11 but I don't think illegal acts and invasion of privacy today is what we had in mind. Just my thoughts however.

"Government isn't the solution; it's the problem." - Ronald Reagan

The problem Plaw and others are having is that they fear an Orwellian violation of their civil rights; that Big Brother is going to be spying and watching their every move, and that they could very well be cited for something they thought was wholly private.

An interesting idea is that if the goverment really wanted to spy on you, do you think you'd ever know about it anyways?

Again, as someone who is in favor of the Patriot Act, and is supporting what the NSA and CIA are doing to protect our country, I think that the problem here is not whether the President approved wiretaps of potential terrorists; it's that our media has no respect for national security and the implications of its irresponsibility.

Truer words were never spoken my friend! Well said!

I think we did want him to do something prior to 9/11 but I don't think illegal acts and invasion of privacy today is what we had in mind. Just my thoughts however. [/b][/quote]Again, as I've said, the question of legality at this point is unknown; it is not illegal to monitor non-citizens, so all of this might be moot. And even if it wasn't, I think that in the case of national security, I'd rather see a few rules be broken if it saves American lives. Don Pope and Snake have already pointed out that the monitoring is being used against terrorists or suspected terrorists, not ordinary citizens.

What is shameful is potentially sacrificing the lives of Americans in the field of battle and civilians here at home in the name of civil liberties, violations of which have not even been verified.

I posted this over in another topic, but it may be a bit more appropriate to post here considering what is being discussed right now. So I've moved it over to this topic.


George W. Bush is not the first President who's administration has used their powers to deny the rights and freedoms of certain populations in the face of a perceived threat. Several great Presidents and their administrations, in the past have also denied the rights and freedoms of certain populations in the face of a perceived threat at different times in its history.

The Alien and Sedition Acts, adopted in 1789 during the administration of President John Adams, came at a time of controversy over the U.S. role in the conflict between England and France immediately after the French Revolution. These acts defined criticism of the president as "sedition" and provided for extra-judicial deporting of legal resident aliens if the administration considered them to be a security threat. During this period, several newspapers were closed, and "threatening" non-citizens were forced to leave the country.

During the Civil War, on several occasions President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (designed to ensure that people who have been imprisoned have not been unlawfully arrested) without Congressional approval. He also closed newspapers that he considered to be seditious.

During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson urged Congress to adopt the Espionage Act, under which his administration sent more than 1000 people to jail for speaking out against the war and the military draft.

During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt approved the detention of more than 120,000 people of Japanese descent, more than two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens.


Don Cardi

Not surprisingly, Don Cardi, each example you have mentioned occurred during a time of war for our nation. And, yes, we currently are at war right now.

Also - keep in mind, as I've been saying, there is no proof that this eavesdropping was violating the rights of any U.S. citizen.

You're correct he's not the first but hopefully he'll be the last