Maybe Tromping on more and more Civil Libertys!

Once something like this is accepted, it will be spread more and more.

As each thing is accepted, then, it is onward to some other thing.

Pretty soon, there will be a Dictator State as Laws are set aside to accomadate more of the leaders who say it is for Mine and Yours Good!

Amount of information mined from wiretaping not OK'd by court much deeper than White House had admitted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/po...=th&oref=login

Just another attack by the Bush haters and their media allies.

IF/when another 9/11 type event happens, the investigating committee afterwards would find:

1 - Bush and Karl Rove had the technology to intercept calls from Bin Laden to his US team

2 - Bush and Rove ignored US law and court decisions allowing them to use this technology

3 - The bombers who toppled the Sears Tower in Chicago could have been stopped easily, if the technology had been used.

NY Times headline: Bush negligent; didn't use easily available info


To summarize: Bush is the Commander in Chief - he has to use all available means to protect us, and to defeat bad guys.

The Dems are the opposition politically. If they think the only way they can regain power is to help Bin Laden succeed, the voters will again tell them "No".

Didnt know The Sears Tower was gone?:) :D

Isnt this what Hitler did without the Technology We have today?:rolleyes:

Isnt G W doing things withour the approval of the Legislature as it is Legal?

of Course, Our Duly Elected Legislatures have their own damn agenda and it isnt for the Betterment of The Citizenery! These Plicks have their own worrys, how to get more $$ in pocket.

It always amazed Me that some Legislatures did not Vote for Their Pay Raises and touted that point. Funny, when they abstained, it was a No Vote, but they still got it as a Pussy Way OUT and Some People Beleived them! Shame on Us as Voters to beleive this Crap!:rolleyes:


Watch Out For Sam Brownback of Kansas, I will not Vote for Him!

Even if it's illegal? I don't think so. The courts may end up deciding this one. Or Congress.

If the courts are deciding this then it hasn't been determined to be illegal yet.

-Rudey

Doesn't mean it isn't either.

Then there's Congress, where even some Republicans are backing away.

We'll see.

All the "Hoo hah" from congress means nothing.

All the "Hoo hah" from the White House in 2004 also meant nothing.

What do they have in common? A bunch of people running for re-election.

Also from AP:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday supported government eavesdropping to prevent terrorism, but said a major controversy over presidential powers could have been avoided by obtaining court warrants.

Powell said that when he was in the Cabinet, he was not told that President George W. Bush authorized a warrantless National Security Agency surveillance operation after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week" Powell said he sees "absolutely nothing wrong with the president authorizing these kinds of actions" to protect the nation.

The New York Times reported on its Internet site Friday that the NSA has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States. The program bypassed the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Powell said Congress will need to judge whether Bush is correct in his assertion that he could approve eavesdropping without first obtaining court orders.

Powell, who also is a former chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, had no reservations when asked whether eavesdropping should continue.

-Rudey

Powell is a former Army officer.

Is he also a Constitutional scholar?

Constitutional scholars didn't stop 9/11.

-Rudey

No they didnt, but is this still the right to take away Constitunional Privileges of Citizens?

Wait till there are people walking down Your Street wanting to know what Your Thinkings art and do You have Weapons?


Do You really think that The US Govt. is really going to stop Terriosts?

Hell someone said they monitored Osams CP, so He quit using it to transmit information!

So much for secret shit! DAH!

US Govt. has more leaks than a seive!

Do You really think Our Govt. is on the side of Us the Private Citizens?

I read this morning that the reason for most of this domestic surveilance is so "W" can find out in advance who will be the next American Idol.

Hey, I read it on the web, so it must be true.

You are actually Correct and do not ever forget it!:D

Kinky is as Kinky Does!:)

I heard it was the fault of FoxNews. They're responsible for everything bad in this country.

American Idol is on the FOX Network (the entertainment one, but still...)

Think about it.

I'm visiting the trophy store today to buy you an award for the corniest joke on Greekchat.com.

-Rudey

Just don't send it "postage due" like the last time...

Cock-a-Doodle-Doo
The chickens are coming home to roost on West 43rd Street, Reuters reports from Washington:

The U.S. Justice Department is investigating who disclosed a secret domestic eavesdropping operation approved by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks, officials said on Friday.

"We are opening an investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of classified materials related to the NSA," an official said on condition of anonymity.

Earlier this month, Bush acknowledged the program and called its disclosure to The New York Times "a shameful act." He said he presumed the Justice Department would investigate who leaked the National Security Agency eavesdropping operation to the newspaper.

The Times, as we noted in February, has of late been a strong proponent of such investigations. When Joe Wilson charged that someone in the administration had "leaked" the name of his wife, CIA analyst Valerie Plame, who he falsely implied was a covert agent, the Times urged the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate what it called an "abuse of power."

The Times got its wish, and more than it bargained for. The paper somehow expected prosecutors not to compel testimony from the recipients of the "leak," the beneficiaries of the purported "abuse of power"--that is, journalists. But it's hard to see how you can investigate a crime (or, in the case of the Plame kerfuffle, a "crime") that consists of giving information to journalists, without questioning journalists.

One of the Times' own reporters, Judith Miller, went to jail rather than reveal her source. No, scratch that. She went to jail, spent three months there, then revealed her source. As Mickey Kaus noted in October:

The message sent to every prosecutor in the country is "Don't believe journalists who say they will never testify. A bit of hard time and they just might find a reason to change their minds. Judy Miller did."

If we were James Risen or Erich Lichtblau, who broke the NSA story for the Times, we'd be nervous.

"Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc."

WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 - The National Security Agency acted on its own authority, without a formal directive from President Bush, to expand its domestic surveillance operations in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to declassified documents released Tuesday.

Those who knew at that time were: Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia.

DeltAlum, are you angry at them?

I still don't see how this is different from past NSA activities. Their Echelon program was designed to collect all communications info so I don't understand how they got around the warrants issue. It was this reliance on technology that many blame Tenet, Clinton, Bush and the CIA for overlooking all the clues for 9/11.

-Rudey

You bet!

There is concern now that some CNN folks, including Christiane Amanpour, have had their conversations listened to. (Important to point out that this is speculation at this point)

The NSA says no.

If history really does repeat itself (Vietnam/Watergate/Civil Rights eras), someday we will find out the real answer is yes.

Ole AC sums this up pretty good:

"The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al-Qaida is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia."

Ah yes the wonderful '1984' sentiment of: "If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear".

So, what proof of this citizen's involvement with a threat to US security is there? Does the NSA have to submit to evidence or proof in advance, or after the fact? Or does this fall under the: "We can't tell you for reasons of national security"?

What would be my main concern (if I was a US citizen) is that such a broad definition of "national threat" is used - and there doesn't seem to be any credible oversight of the security monitoring (wire taps, emails and such). The thing is even in the past, ie. WWII, there had to be judical oversight of the spying or monitoring of US citizens - either by a civilian judge or a military judge... the US was in a full blown world-wide war, and yet they were still able to follow due process... why not now?

Now please keep in mind that I'm from a country where half of what has allegedly been done is perfectly legal, and has been happening ever single day for the last 70 years... the monitoring of any international phone or electronic communications entering Canada - even then all cases have to be undergo judical review. However the spying on a citizen without full authorization, and review, by judicial authourities is strictly prohibitted.


Final thought - wasn't is BuSh himself that said that they are fighting the "enemies of freedom", people who hate the US for it's high values and rights? If so why sacrifice these freedoms and rights - doesn't that accomplish exactly what Bush said he is fighting against?

Pretty simply:

1 - we're at war (most of today's Dem critics voted to go to war)

2 - Bush is the commander in chief, directing the war

3 - we've already lost 3,000 civilians on 9/11

4 - if somebody in the US is communicating with the leaders of the 9/11 attackers, I'm glad Bush is listening in and taking action to keep us safe.
If he needs more listeners, and asks for volunteers, he wouldn't be disappointed.

5 - every war brings some limits on rights, as a lot of Japanese-heritage people in WWII learned during their days in internment camps out in the desert.

6 - the FISA court, supposedly set up to monitor intelligence efforts, has jumped the track. Prior to 9/11 for 20 years, the FISA court did not modify or reject a single warrant request. In 2003/04, the court did "substantive modifications" to 173 requests for warrants, and rejected six outright. Now FISA court judges are granting anonymous interviews to the NYTimes and WashPost involving themselves in upcoming events/requests/briefings.

7 - as long as Bush is president, I'm confident we will not sit around waiting for the next terrorist attack.

The US has been at war in the past, and yet at least made an effort to respect the rule of law and judical procedures then... why not now?



Gee I never knew that that infalibility was a trait confered upon the Commander in Chief during his swearing in :rolleyes: Just because he's Commander in Chief doesn't mean that he is infalible or above the law....



Yes, yes, I realise that... and I do realise invoking 9/11 is a favourite Administration debate tactic; but what does that have to do with circumventing US laws? Others have died in the past, what is so very different this time that rights and freedoms are subverted?



I think you missed the point - I have no problem with the monitoring of people that threaten a nation's security... but I do have a problem when oversight is taken out of the hands of judical or legal authorities - you know checks & balances.



Yes, yes... and the vandalization and burning of German owned establishments in WWII and the Great War - and yet Germans weren't sent to internment camps enmass were they?

I have serious doubts about how much was motivated by security concerns and how much was motivate by racism...



So the fact that the judical oversight system rejected or modified warrants is grounds for not going along with it any more? I gotta say that is a distrubing vien of logic you're following... perhaps there were very sound legal reasons why FISA rejected/modified warrant requests. The fact that these things did happen should not be the reason to circumvent judical proceedures or oversight - in fact I'd wonder why FISA was concerned about the rejected/modified warrants... and moreso about the ones not brought before them.

Fair enough... but there are legal ways to go about it without sacrificing rights and freedoms on the altar of "security"

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on this subject, even though I'm not an Orwell fan :) Could be I'm a good little Prole, or maybe I just don't talk about anything much steamier than when the winter yoga sessions are starting!

Bush=Hitler.

Seriously. Shut up. Please just shut up.

-Rudey

You make some interesting points.

Most of the politicians and commentators making similar points are not concerned with American security, though. They are simply interested in making Bush look bad, in electing Democrats, and in getting more liberal justices appointed.

Their motives, and previous statements, make their "privacy and security concerns" seem frivolous.

P.S.: Bush = great American leader

Many, myself included, may remember the illegal wiretaping of domestic groups during previous administrations and be as outraged now as we were then.

Personally, I think that President Bush (the present one) will be viewed as more of a divider than a leader. History will decide that, though. I can't recall many times when politics has divided the country as badly as it is now.

The perception of opposition to the recent wire tapping issue has been over-stated.

The recent Democratic criticism of President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps might lead one to conclude that the opposition party is genuinely concerned with protecting individual rights and, concurrently, restraining executive power. But when it comes to wiretaps, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been equal partners in expanding the scope of federal power; the present Democratic objection is limited to the absence of pro forma judicial oversight.

This past October, the Senate unanimously passed a bill that would vastly expand the ability of the Justice Department to spy on American businesses via wiretaps. Not a single senator rose to speak against this bill. Even the most rabid Democratic critic of the White House's warrantless wiretapping, Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold, embraced an unprecedented expansion of unsupervised, albeit warrant-enabled, wiretaps.

The actual official opposition to this brand of domestic spying is almost non-existant.

Now your Google searches are up for scrutiny...
 

Google rebuffs feds over access to search data
Bush administration wants details of what users look for
Associated Press
Updated: 8:24 p.m. ET Jan. 19, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO - Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration’s demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet’s leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.

Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.

The government wants a list all requests entered into Google’s search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10925344/?GT1=7538

Re: Now your Google searches are up for scrutiny...
 

This is for something different. It's about pornography. The Supreme Court already struck this down. I have no idea what the heck they are pursuing it for. The Supreme fricking Court already said no so how can they?? I bet it's because Bush just wants to see if Cheney is looking at animal porn or something strange like that. I'm happy that google is saying no to them.

-Rudey

GOOD FOR GOOGLE.COM!

It is starting to get just a little to damn scarry with this along with a so called minor tapping directive.:confused:

Once it starts My friends, just where will it stop?

Hell, there are listening stations all over the World that have a Main Frame looking for Key words that will allow the US Govt. to listen to and watch phone calls and cyber messaging.

Kerry waffles again:
 

Kerry waffles again:

Reuters reports:

Kerry, who endorsed former Vice President Al Gore's call for an independent investigation of the Bush program, said on ABC's "This Week" that some Republicans like Bush adviser Karl Rove are trying to equate Democratic opposition to warrantless spying as weakness.

"What he's (Rove) trying to pretend is somehow Democrats don't want to eavesdrop appropriately to protect the country. That's a lie," Kerry said. "We're prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer."

So he's for spying! Er, hang on a second! Here's the Washington Times:

Kerry yesterday called the National Security Agency's program to eavesdrop on terror suspects illegal, but he said he will continue to support its funding.


-- OJ