Just to set the record straight

[RCglider Profile]

I realize since this thread is not Bush/America bashing it will be closed immediately, and having never been censored or banned by ECGN admins, I will understand if they do it now, but will say it anyway. Since the 'no political thread' policy was implemented, I strived to abide by it. However, it has been consistently violated and for the most part, I kept quiet, but this latest about Bush's use of wiretapping and surveilance being "unprecedented" is laughable and nothing but a political stunt.

Cavaliert said:

If you had bet me $1000 that a president in my lifetime would do this (post Nixon) I would have thought you were crazy.

Were you born in 2001? Ever hear of Echelon or Carnivore? Or maybe you don't know the following:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Extends not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes," a goal of such vital national security interest that they said it justified extraordinary police powers.

Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities.

"The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified..."

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

----------------------------------

That information is pubic knowledge. Please be skeptical of government, but also of the media, especially when they have a reputation for lying, such as the New York Times.

[Davis Profile]

Does this mean the phone company killed kennedy?

[SavageParrot Profile]

No it was Barney the dinosaur. You can clearly see his purple head sticking up over the fence on the grassy knoll.

[CodeRed68 Profile]

Regarding all this wire tapping hub bub...
"President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to intercept calls to or from people inside the country with known ties to al Qaeda or its affiliates, when the other party on the call is outside the United States."

That's it. He is not wire tapping you when you are ordering a pizza from Dominoes. Believe me, I am against oppressive government and invasion of privacy as much as the next guy. But I also have to trust that the government, whether it be Republican, Democrat or Libertarian, is doing what is in the best interest from keeping us from being suicide-bombed. This will go on no matter what administration is in office.

Democrats are doing thier job and playing thier party line by constantly complaining about the current administration. The Republicans would probably do the same if a Democrat was in office.

[SavageParrot Profile]

How do you know there is a plausible link to al qaeda when they are not required to submit grounds before putting them under surveilance. The opportunity for abuse is too great...

[CodeRed68 Profile]

Originally posted by SavageParrot
How do you know there is a plausible link to al qaeda when they are not required to submit grounds before putting them under surveilance. The opportunity for abuse is too great...

"How do you know there is a plausible link to al qaeda when they are not required to submit grounds before putting them under surveilance."

We don't. ?? Apply benefit of the doubt in this case?

"The opportunity for abuse is too great..."

Yes, it is. But you can assume there would be legal action in place if this caused harm to the truly innocent?

[SavageParrot Profile]

Is that before or after they get shipped abroad for torture and imprisonment without trial?

[Sayntfuu Profile]

Originally posted by CodeRed68
Believe me, I am against oppressive government and invasion of privacy as much as the next guy. But I also have to trust that the government, whether it be Republican, Democrat or Libertarian, is doing what is in the best interest from keeping us from being suicide-bombed.

Oh I love the smell of naivete in the morning, smells like, blind faith. Your chances of being "suicide bombed" is less than being struck by lightning out of a clear blue sky. The chances of your airplane being driven into a building are 1 in 1.2 billion in the US. It's even less if you take international flights per day into account. They have sold to us the need to increase our security because we are in danger. It is the biggest lie sold to the American people in the last 50 years.

Why would Bush need to use Executive Orders to approve this spying when they have a secret, closed, puppet court just for handing out warrents for this? He already had a way of doing it that was legal, tested, and IGNORED by the population. Why go the next step and cut out the little oversight that was there.

Proves the point that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why do you think Jefferson believed that the tree of liberty had to be CONSTANTLY watered by the blood of patriots? They new then, these great men who founded this country, that EVERYONE is corrupt if given an opportunity.

Just because we have failed in our duty to be aware and responsible citizens of the human community by ALLOWING our government to be out of control, does not make us any less culpable.

Your milage may vary though.

[CodeRed68 Profile]

Originally posted by Sayntfuu
Oh I love the smell of naivete in the morning, smells like, blind faith. Your chances of being "suicide bombed" is less than being struck by lightning out of a clear blue sky. The chances of your airplane being driven into a building are 1 in 1.2 billion in the US.

Tell that to the innocent people in the World Trade Center that morning.
and...

Originally posted by Sayntfuu
Just because we have failed in our duty to be aware and responsible citizens of the human community by ALLOWING our government to be out of control, does not make us any less culpable.

So it is our (the U.S.) fault that we were suicide-bombed on 9/11? We asked them to come murder us? You are condoning the murderer's actions?

[RCglider Profile]

Why do you think Lincoln said the Constitution isn't a suicide pact?

Civil Liberties aren't much use of you're dead.

Let's see, 3000 Americans were killed by an airplane being driven into a building; it kinda beat the odds of greater than 1.2 billion to one wouldn't you agree? Was it therefore acceptable? Why hasn't it happened since? Should we have just continued on as we were before 9/11/2001? Why didn't Dictator Bush enforce Martial Law?

The fact is every president in U.S. history has been the commander-in-chief, not 535 Congressmen. Go all the way back to the Civil War and beyond and see how war was waged.

Whether you believe it or not, we are in a war of survival and it's no accident there hasn't been another 911 type attack. When it happens again, what will people say then?


What's really disgusting is there are certain politicians and news orginizations willing to sacrifice national security for power.

Look up FISA.


Thanks John McCain. Now Sadam Hussein claims he was "tortured". Group hug.

[Sayntfuu Profile]

Way to miss the point entirely.

The point I was making is that 9/11 was used to poke holes in the Bill of Rights. That is where we have failed.

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

[SavageParrot Profile]

Originally posted by RCglider
Why do you think Lincoln said the Constitution isn't a suicide pact?

Civil Liberties aren't much use of you're dead.

Let's see, 3000 Americans were killed by an airplane being driven into a building; it kinda beat the odds of greater than 1.2 billion to one wouldn't you agree? Was it therefore acceptable? Why hasn't it happened since? Should we have just continued on as we were before 9/11/2001? Why didn't Dictator Bush enforce Martial Law?

So how many people died of gun related deaths this year then? 20,000? 30,000? Seems like dual standards to me...

[Chacal Profile Website]

The fact that it was done by previous presidents doesn't excuse it. They were all as guilty as the current one.

[Sayntfuu Profile]

Originally posted by RCglider
Let's see, 3000 Americans were killed by an airplane being driven into a building; it kinda beat the odds of greater than 1.2 billion to one wouldn't you agree?

There are 30,000 domestic flights, per day, in the US. This does not count international, frieght, or private flights. In 1 year there are 11 million flights in the US alone. This does not take into account regional flights in other countries, international flights at all, or state run airline flights. Out of the last 10 years, 3 planes have been driven into a building. They were unlucky.

Originally posted by RCglider
Was it therefore acceptable? Why hasn't it happened since? Should we have just continued on as we were before 9/11/2001? Why didn't Dictator Bush enforce Martial Law?

Was it acceptable? No. I don't think driving planes into buildings is acceptable. I don't think many sane people would.

I suppose it has not happened since because:

a) We treat any airline passenger as a potential terrorist in line now.
b) We have taken out most of the top leadership of the group that did this too us.
c) No one else has tried since then.

Of course we should not have continued blindly down a path in the face of new data. We did many things to increase airline security that were far from secretly spying on the brown people. We enhanced cockpit door strength. We put guys with guns on the airplanes. More baggage screeners with better tools. These things all were sane and rational answers to a new situation. Using executive orders to spy on US citizens without oversight is way over the top.

He did enforce martial law. As I recal the only things flying on 9/11.5 - 9/13 were fighters over the major cities. My firends and I watched them here in Minneapolis. How long did it take the Patriot Act to pass while we were all still sitting stunned glued to the boob tube watching Wolf Blitzer drone on an on? How many times did we see those planes hit thopse towers? It was numbing.

Originally posted by RCglider
Whether you believe it or not, we are in a war of survival and it's no accident there hasn't been another 911 type attack. When it happens again, what will people say then?

We have been in a war of survival since way before 9/11. The damn Cold War was a war for survival on a scale so much larger than 3 planes into some buildings that it boggles the mind. I mean MAD > Al Quida. I agree it is no accident we have not had a repeat, I mentioned it above. If it happens again we will mourn the dead, adjust our settings, and move the fuck on.

7000 people die each year in America because of hospital administration errors. Are we going to wiretap doctors and nurses in the face of this National Security threat? No. Even though last year incompetence killed more Americans than 9/11 and combat deaths in Iraq combined.

You can't get people behind throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at hospitals. You can on the other hand, scare the hell out of just about everyone with the boogie man of violence and get them behind throwing hundreds of billions of dollars into making them feel safer.

And if we go back through time, past the Civil War, past the Revolution, past the Romans, past the Babylonians, we learn that all wars are fought for money. Every single frikkin one of them.

[CodeRed68 Profile]

There will always be wars and disagreements forever. You cross the line, however, when you move from diplomacy to violent action. That, in turn, causes a reaction. Just as, if not more, violent in return.
Al Queda took a pre-emptive strike at the US. We retaliated.
Saddam Hussain broke provisions set by the United Nations, including the kicking out of weapons inspectors. All this under the threat of a military strike if he did not comply. He did not comply... so the US retaliated.