Discussion Locked

I spy...

0 helpful
40 replies
Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Bush autherized spying on US citizens and is unapologetic.

While I admire the mans conviction and hard-headedness I have to wonder about the legality of it.

To the best of my knowledge, this is a new precedence.

If he can do this sort of thing, why do we need the patriot act? Does this not subvert the legislative process and the legal process?

40 replies

by stress junkie

This is the sort of thing that forced President Nixon to leave office. Nixon did unauthorised wiretapping and burglary. If we had a Democratic Congress I'm sure that this would have lead to an impeachment. Since the Republicans are in charge it's see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

by azul

I really wanted to like Bush. At time I almost have. There are certainly things about him that I like and admire, but this man does not seem to have any regard for civil liberty...

But then the more I dig and learn, it seems like liberty is a stretchy, pliable, maybe disposable warm fuzzy from a bygone era.

I guess I was just to young and dumb to notice before. Am I naive to think a President will actually protect, defend and PRESERVE my liberty?

by jdclyde

The intention was to keep yours and the lives of all you hold dear to you, alive and well.

You will also notice if you read into this issue, that it was only people suspected of terrorist activity.

Would you rather have the next attact stopped before it happens, or would you rather be able to say "thank goodness terrorist suspects are safe and secure in their converstaions."?

Should he have gone to a judge afterwards? It looks like it. Bet we get a set of rules that call for that very thing.

I have heard this before, and I will ask you how your liberty has been impacted? How about anyone you know?

by maxwell edison

Nixon did not authorize a burglary. He did, however, participate in a cover-up of the burglary. Moreover, Nixon would have been impeached, but he chose resignation instead, at the urging of congressional Republicans.

by mjd420nova

Nixon did it for himself, trying to find out what
the opposition party was planning. That's not even in the catagory of spying for the self defence of the nation.

by puppybreath

Strange that you forgot to mention that the original authorization came from Carter and Clinton.

Of course, they were just trying to protect the citizens in a time of peace. Not like that evil Bush who is using a war to increase his power and push through his illegal agenda.

It's also strange how the media or Democrats didn't squawk a bit when Carter and Clinton pushed these laws through, but now that Bush is in office using the exact same laws, he's somehow doing all sorts of illegal activities.

Rescind the powers if you like. Change the laws if you want. But at least get the facts straight. Democrats are still politicians just like Repubicans and like all politicians, couldn't care less about your rights or concerns. It's all about power and nothing else.

by stress junkie

You're absolutely right about this sort of thing happening under previous administrations. It's not just the presidents either. It seems that there is always some faction in Washington that thinks that we have too much freedom to do this or that and they intend to change it. It's probably always been this way since the Continental Congress. I think that over time we see an overall improvement. The Supreme Court's ruling that created the exclusionary rule probably did more to protect our freedom than any other single government action. We still have to be vigilant and "out" the facists when and where we find them.

by azul

I was asking a question.

I have been tring to believe that not all politicians are power hungry thieves.

The thing is, I have always thought they were after my money, as if I had any.

Naive, deaf and blind or out right sutpid, I am only now begining to understand how our individual liberty is/has been eroded.

By no means do I suggest the Democrats are a better alternative to the Republicans.

I vote strictly third party, It is the only chance we have at making a positive change with out another revolution.

by maxwell edison

.
....perhaps I'll explain some things. But suffice it to say, you are SO FAR off with your assertions, including not knowing about what's really going on, and not knowing about the precedence that has been set, quite a number of times, including by President Clinton and President Carter.

Why not do some homework on the subject, and answer your own concerns?

by beads

I believe your eluding to the Phizer Act under Carter. Not sure about the spelling but thats the name that I recall being associated with this law. Though I believe there were a number of checks and balances put in place to keep the NSA from doing what it is now ordered to do (quasi-legally spy on Americans).

Most of the "Black Ops" types that I knew or know were quite happy having Phizer in place as it reduced the normal, albeit legitimate, concerns over what types of signal intelligence they were and were not allowed to partake.

Ahhh... more research.

- beads

by azul

I HAVE been reading. Admittedly I don't know much about Carter or Ford, so you got me there, but then if we were all experts in American history and government you wouldn't have much to do would you?

Seriously though, One of the reason I brought this conversation up here is because there is a far broader selection of ideas than I would otherwise be exposed to.

ALL "news" sources are biased, they all have their political/business connections and agendas and report the news accordingly. You are obviously older and more knowledgable American history and politics. Your input and everyone else at TR who cares to respond IS - part - of my homework. Asking other people for there thoughts, understanding their rationale and learning their sources is legitimate and enjoyable. From what I hope to learn here, I will be better able to find, understand and gleen the truth from what I find.

You could answer any question in this forum, on any topic, with "Why not do some homework on the subject, and answer your own concerns?" but then that kind of defeats one of the key purposes of a discussion forum doesn't it?

Either make a positive and legitimate contribution to the discussion or stay out of it.

by oldbag

THIS MESSAGE IS NOT ANTI AMERICAN BUT IS A STATEMENT ON THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION

There have been numerous cases where citizens of other contries have been abducted and sent to be tortured. This has occurred under the pretext of homeland security. An example of this problem is Maher Arrar who was taken into custody in the US but instead of being sent to Canada (where he is a naturalized citizen), he was sent to Syria and tortured there, held for over a year.

I have read many articles about clandestine CIA flights where others have been picked up and sent for 'interrogation' by states that have no regard for human rights.

I look forward to the day when Mr Bush will be out of office because his second term is up.

Please, during your next presidental election, find out how the candidates intend to approach homeland security, Quantanomo Bay and human rights.

by montgomery gator

I look forward to the day that Paul Martin and his his party are out of office in Canada and instead Canada has a PM like Brian Mulroney, who was a good man and true friend of the USA.

by oldbag

Paul Martin resigned yesterday after losing the election to the Conservative Stephen Harper. Funny how us Canadians could not give him a clear majority and Mr. Harper nwo has to be very careful lest he lose a confidence vote in the House of Commons. Maybe, as a country we are too cautious when it comes to conservative attitudes.

Most of my freinds, family and aquantences want to see Mr. Bush gone. Please, please, please Americans, lose the man that most of the world considers as the most dangerous terrorist around.

by jdclyde

that the answer for the intended approach isn't "I have a plan"?

Funny, how you don't mind that there ARE states with no regard to human rights, just that non-americans were sent there?

Funny why we never hear anyone, UNCLUDING THE UN, about this any other time?

Sounds like someone is spending too much time at moveon.org. (and then will turn around and accuse someone of being a "RUSH" listener as an insult? Too funny)

by sleepin'dawg

It must be nice to be dreaming in technicolor. All governments have spied on their citizens at one time or another, legally and illegally, overtly and covertly and will continue to do so far into the future. The bleeding heart liberals will beat their breasts and protest [b]the erosion of personal or individual rights[/b] but will be secretly damn glad when another terrorist is caught and brought to justice because someone had the balls to take the necessary steps to abort their schemes.

You have probably heard the expression [b]set a thief to catch a thief[/b] well look at it this way sometimes it is necessary to fight fire with fire. The terrorists don't play by the rules so why should we. Yes, if we get caught breaking the rules we will be punished for that but isn't it nice to know that you can sleep safe in your bed tonight because someone had the guts to bend or break the rules, to keep you safe. The main thing we have to guard against is the targeting of innocents. Someone once said it would be better for one hundred guilty men go free than to convict an innocent man. A noble sentiment. The other side of that coin is it would be best to jail one hundred innocent men so that millions can live free. In this day an age when three or four people have the potential to devastate cities like New York and London we cannot afford the luxury of always playing by the rules.

I make no secret of not being a fan of GWB. I don't happen to think he is the sharpest knife in the drawer and another might have been a better choice as President. That being said, thank God for George Walker Bush as President of the United States of America. Can you envision either Gore or Kerry taking the necessary steps in any effort to defend democracy. Sure he's made mistakes and will probably make more but his errors are ones of commission rather than ommission. He is defending America to the best of his abilities, limited as those may be and by extension he is defending the freedom and democracy of all other free nations. A hundred years from now history (hindsight) will judge whether or not he did the right thing but in the meantime bleeding heart liberals should step back and let him get on with the job.

Yes many innocents will have their toes stepped on but if they are truly innocent they will be freed. In the meantime the liberals should cool the rhetoric because all they achieve is encouragement of the enemy, who have no respect for our rules and laws and think they are a sign of weakness. Yes it would be nice if everyone played by the rules but they don't; so get over it. I would rather kill one innocent man than see one hundred terrorists running free, using our rules, our laws, against us. But know this, if its my rights and freedoms you try to step on I'll fight you tooth and nail to the end. You want rights and freedoms, then you better bloody well better fight for them with what ever means are necessary, even if a few innocent toes get stepped on in the process. You can not be saying, save my ass Mr. President, on the one hand and be saying, oh dear Mr. President, you are abusing our civil rights on the other. Not now and who knows when we will ever again be able to have the luxury of being able to do that with out giving aid and comfort to the enemy. [b]"We have seen the enemy and he is us."[/b][i]Walt Kelly - Pogo[/i]

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by jdclyde

if you don't want to listen to what someone says, isn't it?

Relax, and then read it again. There are some very valid points in there. You just have to be willing to be open to different ideas.

Don't let the tone distort the message for you.

I happen to think that [b]like usual[/b], he is dead on.

by maxwell edison

.
There's a distinct difference between having an umbrella of security over our country, and denying citizens their individual rights and liberties. And just because we might attempt to maintain the former, it doesn't automatically mean we must suffer with the latter. That's what a lot of people are suggesting, but I vehemently disagree. As many of the regular and long-time TechRepublic members realize, maintaining (and in some cases, even restoring) American's individual liberty is not only one of my passions, but one of my life's missions. However, I'm also a realist; moreover, I'm not an absolutist. There's nothing that does more disservice to a debate than to have one with an absolutist who can't see reality, or at least apply it to reality.

Consider these things:

There are an estimated 15 million illegal aliens in the United States. I don't think they're all here for our baseball and apple pie. (And no, they're not all Mexicans.) An estimated 2,000 illegal aliens enter the United States every day. Our border security is a joke, and our immigration policies are disgusting. These things didn't happen overnight; it's been a culmination of failed policy for decades. Nor can it be fixed overnight, especially considering the politicization of the issue. (Round up all the illegals and deport them, if you ask me. But then their sympathizers will complain about THEIR rights. How stupid is that?)

There are people, both inside and outside of the United States, who are waging war against us. They don't want our territory; they don't want our resources; they don't want to change our system of government. They want us dead.

The "international community" (including the United Nation), has not only been ineffective in stopping terrorism, but in many ways complacent, and even in some ways, supportive of its growth. All one has to do is to see the stockpiles (yes, stockpiles) of French, German and Russian made weapons recently unearthed in Iraq. And these are post-1991 weapons, which would make their presence proof that those nations violated the UN resolutions after Desert Storm, and are quasi-combatants against the United States of America. And I won't even mention the corruption of the oil-for-food program. And I wonder where the chemical weapons came from in that thwarted chemical-terrorist attack in Jordan a year ago? (I guess the inspectors missed those.) In short, the United Nations, in my eyes, falls just short of an enemy of the United States, hell-bent on the destruction of our way of life.

And now, let's ask the following:

Define spying on American citizens? What exactly is the United States government doing that has your panties in a bunch? And please be specific. Give me the whats, the whos, and the whys. If you're going to start a discussion like this, and make the charges, claims, and suggestions that you're making, perhaps you should be a little more specific on what is being done, why it's being done, and to whom it's being done.

And like I showed in a previous message, this is far from a new precedence. Perhaps you can specifically compare what's going on today to comparable situations in the past.

by mjd420nova

I served the US NAVY during VeitNam and feel that what ever the CIC can do to limit our
involvement in this country as far as terrorism
is concerned, it should be done. Whether behind
our backs or up front, GIT 'ER DONE. IF we can
surveil here and subvert these bad guys over there, DO IT. We, and I mean the american citizens have nothing to hide and nothing to fear
unless we really do have something to hide and don't want to get caught. I don't want to hear it. The government that has all the power to
give us all we want also has the power to take it away. Do you think that it FREE?? We must all pay the price for the freedoms we enjoy.
If these efforts had come forth prior to 9-11-01
the world would surely be different. If the
NSA, CIA, FBI had announced that they subverted
such a major event and it didn't happen, who'd
be mad then?? If you have nothing to hide,
then you are safe. If you have nasty plans to hide and don't want to get caught, GET OUT NOW.
PLEASE. I have no sympathy for those who wish
to do this country harm and my 44 Magnum
gaurantees that if you cross my path you will
indeed meet your maker, be it GOD, ALLAH, BUDDA,
or whow ever you serve, look out, as I am also
out to get you and will got to the ends of this earth to prevent any harm to me and my family.
Those who complain do protest too much and will
be investigated.

by jeasterlingtech9

The main issue is a government agency charged with monitoring incoming phone calls from terrorist suspects actually listened to both sides of the conversation ...horror of horrors they might hear some pillow talk or the next planned bombing location
1. If a wire tap is placed by warrant they record all conversations (they don?t say record only conversations between this guy and that guy)
2. I would rather them know both sides of the phone call it proves both normal and nefarious intentions
3. Although we do treat all in our borders as citizens, should we?
4. Those receiving the calls inside the borders fall into 3 categories innocent, traitor, foreign combatant. Innocents don't care that they were spied upon only traitors, foreign combatants and of course outside agitators care
Guess what now that everybody knows this the bad guys will change tactics resorting to codes or encrypted email instead of easily monitored clear communication thanks a$$h0le that had to report this and I personally want to see treason charges leveled against the ?leaker?

by sleepin'dawg

[b][i]When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles,
Scream and shout.
When the battle is over and done,
Hoist the signal up;
Well done.[/b][/i]

The western democracies, primarily the US, are in a war to preserve our way of life. It is not a war of armies in uniform, marching to and fro, with the drums beating and the bands blaring and heros performing deeds of valour but rather its a war in the back alleys, sneak attacks by those we have permitted to come and live amongst us and whose weapons are booby traps and home made bombs.

They came to us primarily to escape the intolerance and persecution of the places they were living, to acquire freedom and prosperity and to become prosperous. If you walked down any street in the middle east or other third world nation, and talked to anyone you would find more than half dream of one day emmigrating to the west, again primarily, the US. Doubt my word??? Just take a drive along the US/Mexico border and actually see the numbers that try daily to gain entry, legally or illegally, to the US. Most come with ideas of gaining freedom and prosperity but unfortunately amongst them there are those who want to steal from us our freedoms and rights; to destroy our way of life; to take short cuts on the road to prosperity but worse than that, amongst them there are the fanatics of a religion set on the destuction of all other beliefs in an an attempt to submerge us under the rule of their religious laws; laws that are an anathema to our ways.

We lay out the welcome mat to these people and extend the protection of our laws, freedoms and civil rights to them but in place of any sense of gratitude they perceive us as weak and stupid, fit to be conquered and converted to [b]their belief system. They want to destroy us and they are perfectly willing to use our rights and freedoms against us.[/b] Why should we permit this and why do we stand idly by and allow this to happen??? Why do we extend our rights and freedoms to this scum of humanity??? Aside from abusing our welfare and legal systems, they don't pay any taxes and are ungrateful for the opportunities and freedoms truly available to them. Why do we extend the rights and freedoms of our system which we have strived, fought and paid for to this scum which is out to destroy us??? Hmmmmm??? Well you can ask the bleeding heart liberals the answer to that but as for me, I say forget civil rights for these people; no trials, just put them on the first available boat, plane or train and send them back to where they came from. Many will be and are repeat offenders. Most are harmless but how do we sort out the harmless from the nefarious ones, seeking to do us harm. The only solution,as I see it, is to bend the law or suspend it.[b] Note: I do not and will never say, eliminate it.[/b] Yes, the liberals will protest and beat their breasts but they will be protected despite their ignorance and stupidity. After all it's their right to be stupid and ignorant; isn't it???

We are at war with an unseen enemy. The enemy could be someone you work with, a neighbour, someone passing in the street. We don't and can't know or recognize who they are. So how do our leaders protect us??? If we were drowning, people like Ol' Chickenhawk would want to throw us an anchor.

The bottom line in any war is to win the damn thing and as anyone who has ever been to war can tell you, you use every means available to you to accomplish that end, even if you break some of the rules and regulations along the way. You will be held accountable, especially if you lose. Forget about all the pratting about the causes, either right or wrong, justified or unjustified, that has brought us to this. At this point they are useless. We can examine them later, if we win the war. If you are in a war you have to use anything and everything to win it. There is no second place and silver medals in war. It's either win or lose; survive or die. Chickenhawk should take a walk down to the lower west side of Manhattan and look into the pit. If he has a picture of the twin towers, so much the better. He would then be in a position to contemplate the enemy. The enemy was a tiny group of individuals that passed amongst us unknown. They were perfectly willing to sacrifice themselves for their cause. Four of these tiny groups passed through airport security unnoticed. Their aim or goal is/was the destruction not of the towers per se but the American way of life; the ideal of democracy. The towers weren't brought down by wrecking balls and demolition crews. They had already withstood one attack with explosives in 1993. What brought the Twin Towers down. Oh yes, you'll say planes flying into them but that just wasn't so. What brought the Towers down was the [b]simple little box cutter[/b], in the hands of self-destructive fanatics out to destroy the American way of life and by extension, democracy in the western world. Go to London and talk to the survivors of the bus bombings and ask them if they saw and recognized the enemy before the explosions went off. Have you ever noticed that [b]all[/b] people of Mediterranean, Iranian,Pakistani or even Mexican origins appear similar when dressed like us??? How many are there out there who we pass daily in our normal routines??? Which one could be an enemy in disguise??? How can you tell and if perchance you could tell, what would [b]you[/b] do about it??? Ever hear the taped conversation from the guy on Flight 93??? Would you be prepared to put your fat ass on the line like he and a few others tried to do??? Now that was a real American because he wasn't willing to give up without a fight but the saddest commentary was the discovery of many who remained strapped in their seats to be found amongst the wreakage. Chickenhawk would have probably been one of those. He would have gone to his death protesting the unfairness of the situation he was in but had been unwilling to stand up and fight. That is another enemy we are up against; [b]Apathy!!![/b] Sometimes our privacy and rights may get stepped on but as long as we and our way of life survives, I'll tolerate it. I won't like it but I will tolerate it and [b]if[/b] we win this war, I will be alive and free to b1tch as loud as any of them about it. That is the name of the game, survival; survival of our way of life. Anything less, anything else, is not an acceptable option.

So Chickenhawk, how would you fight this enemy??? it is a war totally unlike any that has gone before. Any constructive ideas or are you going to live the rest of your cowardly existence moaning and puking about your rights being stepped on. Those who are not prepared to fight for their rights don't deserve them. Your way is the traitors way because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. You are a waste of resources. You aren't prepared to put up with some temporary restrictions to help defeat the enemy. You are as much the enemy as those who attack us and in some ways worse. Someone once said that the tree of freedom rquired watering with some blood, from time to time. I think whoever it was, was right but it is a bit of a b1tch when it's your own blood. Well as long as I don't bleed to death, I'm willing to give a pint or two.

[b][i]We have seen the enemy and he is us![/b] Walt Kelly - Pogo[/i]

You've got to be thankful for George Bush. You don't have to like him and I don't but I do respect him because he is willing to take the necessary, if unpopular, steps to win this war. He has made mistakes and he will make others but he is set on winning it. So, yeah, I'll tolerate my privacy being invaded a bit as long as I'm going to be alive at the end to protest that invasion.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by sleepin'dawg

old common sense mixed with a dash of bitter experience. BTW your well on the road to acquiring the latter and if you maintain a little patience and take some time to observe, you'll find the former comes as naturally as you demonstrated on your divorce thread. You just needed a nudge now and then to keep you from losing patience and running out to get yourself into more trouble. BTW I still get my ass into trouble because I sometimes forget to apply the former. Remember this line,[b][i] "Life is a dream a little more coherent than most."[/i][/b] I hope you enjoyed your Christmas with your boys and wish you a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by dr dij

jumped off a cliff, you'd go along?

the beauty of this country is that we stand up for freedom and human rights even when the rest of the world is ignoring them.. (well I thought we did.. I guess not..)

by maxwell edison

.
I posted those links for the benefit of our Canadian, Australian, and British friends, so they could comment on them as well. They were also, of course, dripping with sarcasm, in case you didn't notice.

I don't need those other nations to stand-pat on my argument that what's being done is both legal and legitimate. And I find it interesting that no one has commented on my other messages supporting it.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=186637&messageID=1911798

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=186637&messageID=1912002

So try again, Dr Dij. Your attempt to characterize me as you did is very lame.

by azul

I have been in the hospital and have had no access to a PC for a few days.

To make it short and somthing, It is about principals. If we subvert our principals, we have no authority. We have and are moving far away from the pincipals that our freedom and liberty are based upon.

I agree with much of what you, JD and others have said.

If Bush worked to maintain checks and balances and recognized that ALL have inalienable rights, I would be a lot more supportive.

That is it in a nutshell for me.

Thank you for your comments.

by tonythetiger

For example, if you are sitting at an intersection and the light turns green, you have the right to proceed through the intersection. If, however, you choose not to use prudence by looking for cross traffic before proceeding and get mowed down by a tractor-trailer, you may very well have been right, but you may also be very well dead!

by tonythetiger

Suppose a legal wiretap was being conducted on a gangster. Now suppose the gangster calls his mother and that call is recorded. Are the mother's rights being violated? Of course not.

Apply the same logic to the wiretapping going on between suspected terrorists outside this country (who Bush doesn't NEED a warrant to tap) and whomever they call and receive calls from in this country (equated to the mother in the previous paragraph).

Precedence? Hardly. It's just that back then, the New York Times wasn't in the habit of divulging TOP SECRET plans relating to national security. (Personally, I think the paper should be forcibly shut down until the names of those 'anonymous government sources' are revealed, then these sources should be tried for treason.)

The Patriot act is needed when the suspects are operating wholly within our borders.

by road-dog

I see that a temporary relaxation of civil protections (not the case here) is part of the government's PRIMARY job of protecting citizens by preserving the political structure that supports those very protections.

If terrorism causes anarchy and removes the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then the government has failed to comply with it's Constitutional responsibilities.

I liken this to Field Medics removing a leg to save the patient. At some point, preservation of the "body politic" overrides the value of the leg which would ordinarily be preserved in circumstances which would permit it.

I believe that the Executive branch has carte blanche to spy on terrorists as part of defense responsibilities. Phone calls are bi-directional and the government should only need one end of the call to involve a terrorist suspect to be allowed to monitor the call.

The way I see it, this whole issue is a tempest in a teapot. I notice that the Congress members making the biggest noise about this are not the ones involved directly in oversight! In other words, those who are in the loop about the conditions and extent of these activities apparently see the propriety of the spying.

by husp1

to the constitution in tiny paragraphs witch should not obscure the original text. wonder what new changes will be made in the next 10 years? ( pardon my sarcasim)

This discussion is closed to new replies.