The W
Views: 97829699
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
31.7.07 0021
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Bush authorized NSA spying without a warran Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(174 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (34 total)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1532/2692
EXP: 8776774
For next: 212045

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
#21 Posted on 20.12.05 0645.06
Reposted on: 20.12.12 0658.44
    Originally posted by Nag
    The War on Terror is everybit of a war as is The War on Drugs. You cannot defeat terrorism, you cannot eliminate every single terrorist cell from the globe. There are no objectives, no clear enemy, no path to victory. Terror is a word an idea, bullets, missiles and bombs can topple governments and nations but it cannot destroy words or ideas. Even someone as stupid as Bush knows this, I have yet to figure out how almost half of my countrymen don't. The War on Terror is double speak for, let Elmer Fudd...I mean George Bush and his fascist buddies have carte blanche in establishing his draconian law in this once great country. As long as he is passing out his evangellical flavoured Kool-Aid, all is right with the world.

    Things like this is EXACTLY what Bin Laden wanted, and well, it's exactly what Bin Laden got.



I was going to respond but Nag you said it quite well. Until people understand that there are indeed outcomes worse than terror in a country like ours, I fear for our country.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 3410/5402
EXP: 26905398
For next: 226606

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#22 Posted on 20.12.05 0941.36
Reposted on: 20.12.12 0941.43
    Originally posted by BigSteve

      Not to be flip about such things as terror and death, but all the sleeper cells in the world right now could not do a damn thing to this country except to make us mad and kill a couple of us. So it's kind of a strawman to set up as though the choice is between allowing wire tapping or ascession to an Islamic state.

      And one of the great Western influences, one of the most original ideas that defines Western civilization is civil liberties. The destruction of America will not be from a few Islamists with vendettas. The only way we go down is internally, if we give in to all of our worst impulses, among them the desire to surrender our liberties for the promise of security.


    "All" they can do is kill "a couple of us"? What more is there?

    And there is no one that seriously fears that we will turn into an Islamic state. The reasons why people like Bin Laden and his Islamofacist buddies are called "terrorists" is because they kill to try to cause political change because they have no popular support. 30 9/11s wouldn't turn this into an Islamic State, but is that the price we're willing to pay to protect some of our civil liberties?

    Civil liberties are great, and you're one hundred percent right about certain civil liberties being the basis of Western Civilization. But no one cares about civil liberties when their life is threatened. No one who is actually killed in a terrorist attack is likely to be thankful that they lived without their civil liberties encroached upon.

    I'm not willing to give the government free reign in protecting us from terrorism. Look at the other thread about the kid who checked out the Little Red Book. Is that book banned? No, it isn't. Was the student thrown in jail for reading the book? No, he wasn't. All that happened was that DHS checked him out because of a number of factors. As far as I'm concerned that's the way to take protective measures without running roughshod over people's rights. But to some that means that the USA has suddenly become a totalitarian state.

    It's easy to say from the safety of our own homes that we should never give up liberty for security, but unless we want to run unecessary risks of being attacked by terrorists, it's silly to cling to the exact same lifestyle we had before 9/11.

Go back and read Shep's post. After quoting a Bin Laden fatwa he says:
    Originally posted by Shep
    You are really splitting hairs with your ends and means. They want the resurgence of the dominance of the Islamic World, which means the death of Westerners and their influences. But let's not get off the topic of domestic surveillance.

I read that as his saying those are the stakes in this battle. Which just is not going to happen. With the zealots running things on all ends the world will go up in flame before that happens.

I live in Chicago, one of the biggest cities in the world. I know that 9/11 could have just as easily happened to the Sears Tower and John Hancock building (both building which I have worked in) as to the WTC. So I feel like yes, I am threatened by the spectre of terrorism. And I am still quite concerned with my civil liberties.

As for the idea no one killed in a terror attack is happy their civil liberties weren't infringed upon...I'm going to guess every person killed in gun violence last year would more than happily rip the 2nd Amendment to shreds. And that number is a lot bigger every year than we've lost to terrorism in the 200+ year history of this country. But I'm going to assume that the folks very in favor of selective culling of civil liberties in the pursuit of safety aren't going to call for the repeal of the 2nd anytime soon.

And really...from everything I've read, it sounds like we had plenty of intelligence with pre 9-11 powers to capture everyone who was involved in the WTC attack, but didn't act on it. I agree that we need to be more vigilant, but to me the idea of checking out a kid for reading Mao is about as useful as having 90 year old women from Dubuque taking off their shoes at the airport. We need to be targeted in our actions (which is why I tend to give a deaf ear to people who complain about profiling, when as of now the only people we know about actively trying to kill us are in fact young Muslim males) and use our resources in places they can actually make a difference. I know personally too many people who have been harassed for being in the anti-war movement to think that we are doing such well-targeted efforts at this time.
EddieBurkett
Boudin blanc
Level: 92

Posts: 1315/2301
EXP: 7479460
For next: 277507

Since: 3.1.02
From: GA in person, NJ in heart

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 43 min.
#23 Posted on 20.12.05 1452.23
Reposted on: 20.12.12 1452.39
Given the level of the rhetoric I feel like I'm going off topic, but here's (arstechnica.com) an interesting attempt at technical analysis behind how exactly the NSA might be monitoring phone calls.

What I find interesting is that its not quite as simple as "Bush-is-recording-everything-you-say." It makes sense that this system doesn't fit within the scope of current laws, and if Bush/the NSA didn't want to tip their hands about it, then they would have to go about enacting this behind closed doors. Of course, then one might start to question who Bush was afraid of tipping his hand to...
Nag
Landjager
Level: 60

Posts: 854/904
EXP: 1765614
For next: 7174

Since: 10.1.03
From: Enter your city here

Since last post: 2093 days
Last activity: 148 days
Y!:
#24 Posted on 21.12.05 1327.10
Reposted on: 21.12.12 1327.21
    Originally posted by ShotGunShep
    Nag, what the hell are you talking about? Here is your logic...


I am not saying "don't try". I'm simply, asking, for realistic objectives to be set forth in which we actually attempt to accomplish. Don't think that is too much to ask.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch. But I do question this. A nation that spends more on it's military, then all the nations in world combined, I can go to a link on this site right here and with anyones address tell you what kind of car you drive; yet, we have not been able to catch Bin Laden? That trick is as old as warfare itself. As long as the duck is still flying, someone still gets to hunt.

I don't have the time for a long drawn out thought provoking post. But I am all for finding those responsible for 9-11, either bringing them to justice, or shooting to kill. But we have spent more energy on Iraq, on destroying our own freedoms with the patriot act, then doing the right thing.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1745/3426
EXP: 13589777
For next: 369913

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
#25 Posted on 24.12.05 0609.52
Reposted on: 24.12.12 0610.52
Now the New York Times is saying the NSA spying is much more widespread than Bush is acknowledging.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 24.12.05 0711)
It's False
Scrapple
Level: 137

Posts: 1449/5995
EXP: 30871396
For next: 1537

Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
#26 Posted on 31.12.05 0038.51
Reposted on: 31.12.12 0039.07
The latest news? Someone will pay for what's happened and be held accountable.

Unfortunately, it's gonna be the whistleblower.
Stilton
Frankfurter
Level: 56

Posts: 737/793
EXP: 1381339
For next: 16846

Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3099 days
Last activity: 3099 days
#27 Posted on 31.12.05 1202.45
Reposted on: 31.12.12 1203.07
    Originally posted by It's False
    The latest news? Someone will pay for what's happened and be held accountable.

    Unfortunately, it's gonna be the whistleblower.


Of course, the bully always beats up the tattletale as soon as the bell rings.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 3422/5402
EXP: 26905398
For next: 226606

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#28 Posted on 31.12.05 1238.12
Reposted on: 31.12.12 1239.00
    Originally posted by It's False
    The latest news? Someone will pay for what's happened and be held accountable.

    Unfortunately, it's gonna be the whistleblower.

To be fair, the guy did break the law, and the Bush Administration will let nothing, NOTHING, stand in the way of pursuing the proper application of the law in any circums...*falls out of chair laughing*
El Nastio
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 955/2214
EXP: 7050670
For next: 137966

Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 17 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
ICQ:  
#29 Posted on 31.12.05 1528.17
Reposted on: 31.12.12 1529.01
I'm not an Americian, so I'm sorry for intruding. Correct me if I'm wrong, if Bush and the NSA went public with how and what they montitored, the "bad guys" would just say 'ok, so now we know what we're up against!" and just work around the system. Maybe an example would be a computer gaming company saying "this is our firewall and this is how it works!". Meanwhile, some hacker knows that the source code for a hot new game is around there....wouldn't it make things easier for the hacker?

I dunno. I disagree with Bush on a few things....but I think he gets a bad rap sometimes just because people don't like him for other things he's done. It's to the point now where he could be holding a door open for his wife and someone took a picture the caption may say "Bush believes women can't hold open their own doors!'. Maybe not that extreme, but I hope my point is illistrated.



I do know that I wish here in Canada we had someone who ran our country with a shred of moral fabric and had concern for our country. Instead we have next to nothing in the way of military funding, no anti-terror measures in effect, and the moral compass is not collaberated.

(edited by El Nastio on 31.12.05 1629)
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 3199/3273
EXP: 12660163
For next: 11821

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 114 days
#30 Posted on 31.12.05 1959.33
Reposted on: 31.12.12 2001.09
It's not about going public, it's about obtaining warrants and obeying the law. There are ways to go about this that are perfectly legal, but they have chosen to forgoe those methods and break the law for whatever reason. It's not like these laws are just arbitrary, or only apply "somtimes" - these laws exist for a reason, and that's to protect the American people.
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 950/1091
EXP: 2179856
For next: 34253

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2757 days
Last activity: 2485 days
#31 Posted on 31.12.05 2048.18
Reposted on: 31.12.12 2048.40
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    There are ways to go about this that are perfectly legal, but they have chosen to forgoe those methods and break the law for whatever reason.


And that assumes that it's been decided that there was no legal authority to this which would be a bit of a stretch.


    It's not like these laws are just arbitrary, or only apply "somtimes" - these laws exist for a reason, and that's to protect the American people.


What about the laws that protect against the leaking of classified information? Do they cease to apply if the leak hurts Bush? If we're going to investigate the leak of the identity of a CIA operative, why shouldn't we do the same when the secrecy of a national security initiative is compromised?
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 3200/3273
EXP: 12660163
For next: 11821

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 114 days
#32 Posted on 1.1.06 0814.42
Reposted on: 1.1.13 0815.59
Obviously it should be investigated. Otherwise how are we to know the details of where and how this information was obtained, etc - it could turn out that someone is selling state secrets and the revelation of this one to the general public was some kind of accident. Investigation and prosectuion are two seperate things, and I'm willing to wait and see what the Justice Department goes with this before crying foul.


As for Bush's legal authority, he's been claming that his actions are legal under the War Powers Act and that we've been at war since September 11th, 2001. Now given that the War on Terror is one that very likely has no end, as we have no stated "winning condition" or even a face to put to the enemy, I find this line of thought to not only be very shakey, but rather disturbing as well. If one good thing could come out of all this, I would hope congress would (at the very least) declare that the "War on Terror" is over, and that Bush and future Presidents are going to have to conduct national defence through normal means.
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 145

Posts: 3843/6714
EXP: 37275480
For next: 328692

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#33 Posted on 1.1.06 1141.02
Reposted on: 1.1.13 1143.48
If leaks were such a big deal to the Bush administration, why did Scooter Libby get a pat on the back from the president? Why does Karl Rove still have a job? Why, if Bush himself knows the identity of the Plame leaker (as has been speculated), why didn't he come forward?

The hypocrisy of this administration is staggering.
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 951/1091
EXP: 2179856
For next: 34253

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2757 days
Last activity: 2485 days
#34 Posted on 1.1.06 1247.29
Reposted on: 1.1.13 1247.45
    Originally posted by Jag

    As for Bush's legal authority, he's been claming that his actions are legal under the War Powers Act and that we've been at war since September 11th, 2001.


Actually (or at least in addition to that), the Administration has claimed that it has the legal power/right to do this under the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). Here's (uchicagolaw.typepad.com) an analysis of why that justification is plausible coming from a guy who is pretty far from just being a Bush supporting partisan.

    Originally posted by Big Bad
    If leaks were such a big deal to the Bush administration, why did Scooter Libby get a pat on the back from the president? Why does Karl Rove still have a job? Why, if Bush himself knows the identity of the Plame leaker (as has been speculated), why didn't he come forward?

    The hypocrisy of this administration is staggering.


An indictment is a pat on the back for Scooter Libby? Since Rove wasn't indicted, let alonse convicted, for involvement in the leak why should he be convicted? Just for the sport of it? I guess everyone "knows" Rove was involved in the leak, and if he broke the law he deserves to be fired, but why doesn't Rove get the benefit of the presumption of innocence?
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: Tragedy in West Virginia, Miners Found Dead
Next thread: Teen skips school, goes to Iraq
Previous thread: We need to end this war NOW!
(174 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Bush authorized NSA spying without a warranRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.209 seconds.