FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Bush Wiretapping power





diverden
This is such a great spin on the abuse of power by the executive branch. I am the president and I am all wise and all knowing (oops I forgot about the WMD mess). I not only have the power but we have stopped dozens of potential attacks by unknown groups but of course we can't tell you who they are because it would violate national security interests. Mr. President what gives you the power? Well because I said so and there is a declaration from ngress.
But hey, trust us, we wouldn't do anything wrong, at least that you will ever find out for the next 30 years due to top secret status. Besides we have picked up dozens of stock tips and hundreds of tips about opposition politicians that is like money in the bank.
OnlyOneLife
I like your sacrasim... hahahahaha. Yea, I totally feel violated... I mean don't they know raping people violates their personal space and confort zone? Same with wiretapping YOUR OWN PEOPLE COUNTRY.

Questionaire: What about the first amendment rights of the Constitution.
BUSH: FU** the Constitution.

HAHAHAHAHAHA
Soulfire
Well, the Patriot Act is meant to help Americans. If you have nothing to hide, why do you oppose it? If it takes the gov't to tap every phone in the country to take down terrorists, and save potentially thousands of fellow Americans' lives, then so be it. No, you're too wrapped up in yourself to realize.

Why not try to be Patriotic about it?

And FYI, the first amendment really doesn't have anything to do with this post. It's about personal liberties like press, speech, etc. Not talking about the gov't and it's power. Besides, if congress felt that the president was overstepping the line, they can stop them. Checks and balances, remember?

Sarcasm is getting old.. Confused
S3nd K3ys
:pwned: by the server Wink
S3nd K3ys
Soulfire wrote:


Sarcasm is getting old.. Confused


Ignorance is getting old too.
Devil
Soulfire wrote:
Well, the Patriot Act is meant to help Americans. If you have nothing to hide, why do you oppose it? If it takes the gov't to tap every phone in the country to take down terrorists, and save potentially thousands of fellow Americans' lives, then so be it. No, you're too wrapped up in yourself to realize.

Why not try to be Patriotic about it?

And FYI, the first amendment really doesn't have anything to do with this post. It's about personal liberties like press, speech, etc. Not talking about the gov't and it's power. Besides, if congress felt that the president was overstepping the line, they can stop them. Checks and balances, remember?

Sarcasm is getting old.. Confused


i totally agree with you , the Security of the people should come first , and very important thing is , that every terrorists is trying to target america at this moment ,

and dont think that these terrorists are some old guys wearing turban and dont know to read or write,

well when terrorists are Trained , only the highly qualified Terrorists ,with skills of also flying a plane , operate computers , are send to USA , the second degree of terrorists , are sent to Isreal

3rd degree , terrorists ,can make bombs , plant mines , sucide bombers , are sent to iraq

4th degree terrorists , are sent to india , these are the stupid people , they are not trained , mostly people in pakistan jails , who have commited a crime are told to go and stay in kashmir for 2 years , if they return back after 2 years , they get loads of money , and they r free,

it is very easy for them ,since the pakistani army escorts them to the india border Confused
Soulfire
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Soulfire wrote:


Sarcasm is getting old.. Confused


Ignorance is getting old too.

How am I being ignorant?
The Philosopher Princess
I agree with the sentiments above of diverden and OnlyOneLife. I don’t agree with the posts here of the Apologists for Government invasion of privacy.

Government officials often live as if they are, not just above the law, but also above the moral decency of treating the P’s (People, People’s Property, and People’s Privacy) with respect. They only care about their own P (Power). This latest Government wire-tapping invasion is just one more example where Government Power shows its ugly tentacles.

How do Government officials get that Power? People give it to them, of course.

It’s not just that the Power-hungry kinds want Power. (You know those kinds: the ones who make it in Politics {one of those other nasty P’s} and other places {no P-status, there Smile } that are Privileged {yes!} by the results of Government monopoly.) Of course the Power-hungry want Power, given their kind. But they wouldn’t get that Power if they didn’t have a mandate of their citizens -- i.e., the ones who Voted them into Power.

In this case, one cannot validly have Voted for Bush and not also be blamed for the Privacy invasions Bush is doing. Yes, I am speaking the harsh truth that those who Voted for Bush should be fully blamed for the wire-tapping invasions.

Oh sure, these Voters are not going to want to take any responsibility. They, like the Politicians they Voted into Power, do what they can to Pass {had to redden the a for the filter Smile } off their responsibility, claiming the Problem is really someone else's.

It has been said that giving Political Power to Politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to reckless teenage boys. Anybody who does something that stupid and irresponsible is partially to blame for the results. I say that the big difference is that teenage boys can’t do as much damage to as many People.

(For the record, Scary Kerry would not have been any better. If he were President, he would also be sticking his Presidential Power into People, People’s Property, and People’s Privacy.)

(See more, related notions at Not Voting is Reasonable... and In Search of Non-Corrupt Politicians Frihost topics.)
horseatingweeds
Now I have to P

I think this wire taping shenanigans has been a good example of the US system. In an attempt to protect the P’s (I tend to believe him) the president overstepped his authority. Not by much, I mean, not by enough to anger congress but enough to cause the people and their press (does this count as a P) to reprimand.

A great example of check – and – balance. I don’t think our buddy Bush will be doing any more taps without a court order any time soon.

Although it is anointing, and much of it currently is being spurred by partisanship, this American is proud.
prongs_386
Soulfire wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Soulfire wrote:


Sarcasm is getting old.. Confused


Ignorance is getting old too.

How am I being ignorant?

i believe you are being called ignorant for only thinking that they want to tap all the phone lines as a security measure against terrorism. They have pushed the fear of terrorism a huge way now and are using it to justify anything they want.
There would be hundreds of reason's why they would want to tap phone lines and terrorism is just one. Notice they justify it as a safety measure against terrorism, but won't write anything down saying that is the only thing that people could be prosecuted for.
horseatingweeds
prongs_386 wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Soulfire wrote:


Sarcasm is getting old.. Confused


Ignorance is getting old too.

How am I being ignorant?

i believe you are being called ignorant for only thinking that they want to tap all the phone lines as a security measure against terrorism. They have pushed the fear of terrorism a huge way now and are using it to justify anything they want.
There would be hundreds of reason's why they would want to tap phone lines and terrorism is just one. Notice they justify it as a safety measure against terrorism, but won't write anything down saying that is the only thing that people could be prosecuted for.


Well said, I mean terrorism isn't that big of a deal. Bush obviously is tapping for other devious reasons. Cuz like, what would another terrorist attack do? Anyway, Oshama want a truce, I hope we can appease him and go back to the old days of complacency and reduced military spanding.
AG007
I am glad the Bush is prisendent now. Just imangine if he wasn't.
I guess a couple of more terrorist attack could of come by, you know normal routine. But NO!!!! He got them were it hurts, and there were some result, now they are not attacking here in America, but they are attacking their closest neighbors (Europe). You know scare of money, I think we are safe for a while.
horseatingweeds
Yeh, they started off pretty strong with planes loaded with fuel. Now they are down to cars and trucks. I'm just waiting for the first bicycle bomb to show up on the news. Then we'll know their licked.

Little red wagon painted blue - little red wagon painted - KabOOOm

A suicidcycler prematurely detonated today in Gaza as the terrorist attempted to get his bike out of the garage without scratching his father's car..
armanandjulia
Those laws disclosed in the Patriot Act keep the power in the hands of a select few. We are all complicit in the passing of the law because it's our responsibility to hold our elected officials to keep their promises.

I'm sure that none of us would have agreed to the language in the act if we knew what it entailed.
The Philosopher Princess
One who understands and cares about the principles that are the essence of being American (i.e., breaking away from a previous tyrannical Government in search of Freedom) would never say something like the following:

Soulfire wrote:
Well, the Patriot Act is meant to help Americans. If you have nothing to hide, why do you oppose it?

There is either no understanding of the concept of Freedom, or no desire for achieving it.

You want people to be patriotic to something which you want to include more and more tyranny? You’ve got to be kidding!

The logical choices instead are (1) Freedom and patriotism, (2) Tyranny and no patriotism, or, for some, the other choice is (3) Idiocy.

Do you have any clue of America’s historical significance of having a limited Government that is not supposed to infringe upon the Freedom of its citizens? If you did, you would understand why the excuse that “the Patriot Act is meant to help Americans...” rings hollow and ignorant.

What good is being an American if it means letting political power-mongers take away the very Freedom that makes America better than North Korea? What possible reason could make sense to be “patriotic” to a system that takes away Freedom?

Throughout history, the excuse tyrants have used to trample on the Freedom of their citizen-slaves is that it is necessary for the security of the state and for the safety of the citizens. If you fall for that line, you become an accomplice to the tyrants who trample on Freedom.

Benjamin Franklin said it well: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

Learn what it means to be American. Learn what Freedom means. Learn the principles upon which America was founded. Then maybe you won’t sound idiotic when you talk about being patriotic.
horseatingweeds
Benjamin Franklin said it well: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

The trouble of using this quote in making your point is that in saying this, Franklin was attempting to convince the colonies to go to war with England.

Your point is well made and it is emphatic that it is the responsibility of the patriot to hold their government accountable. Under this issue I think we have don't a fair job and should continue to do so.

The other point here is that we are at war with a very slippery and unorthodox enemy. Slippery and unorthodox measures must be made to insure liberty but not at the cost of liberty. This would just be pointless.

Additionally, being one who voted for Bush, I do apologies for my part in neglecting the court order prior to the wire tap. I will do my best to insure that it doesn’t happen again.
Marston
Ah, it's so good to live in Canada, where we're in a Democracy, not a Dictatorship. Cool
The Philosopher Princess
Good minding of your P’s and Q’s, horseatingweeds! I will address your posts in the near future. In the mean time, I have the next one ready to go. And maybe you'll have more before I get back here.
The Philosopher Princess
What if someone does have something to hide?

Soulfire wrote:
Well, the Patriot Act is meant to help Americans. If you have nothing to hide, why do you oppose it?

** What if someone is working at a business and discussing trade secrets on the phone? Shouldn’t they be able to hide their secrets till they decide to share?

** What if someone is a homophobe or a homosexual but doesn’t want anyone other than their close friends to know? Shouldn’t they be able to hide their secrets till they decide to share?

** What if someone is embarrassed about being an adult illiterate or a 40-year-old virgin -- or an ex-junkie or ex-socialist -- or even one who wishes they hadn’t Voted for Bush (or Kerry) (or at all) and have since moved on politically -- or maybe about not giving a hoot about the Super Bowl? Shouldn’t they be able to hide their secrets till they decide to share?
~~~~~~~~~~
The subject was illegal wiretapping of Americans, but since you chose to defend the whole Patriot Act, that opens up the issues of search and seizure without warrant, holding suspects incommunicado without charges or trials so they can’t even tell their family, friends, or attorney that they have been imprisoned, and taking away almost all of the Freedom upon which America was founded.

The main reason that Government is not allowed to tap phones, bug rooms, spy on, and otherwise invade the privacy of American citizens (without a court warrant) is because the founders of America understood that such power in the hands of Government was dangerous, and that any Government that so abuses the Freedom of its citizens is certain to become a Terrible Tyranny.

So, maybe you’d say that it’s only Government agents fighting terrorism that will get to listen to the wiretaps, so people’s personal information will be safe from the general public. As somewhat stated here, that’s pretty naive, considering how many “leaks” of information have come from supposedly secure Government sources. Remember, a secret once told is secret no more.
~~~~~~~~~~
Soulfire wrote:
No, you're too wrapped up in yourself to realize.

You have it backwards, Soulfire. You are the one, not those to whom you were speaking, who are “too wrapped up in yourself to realize.”
~~~~~~~~~~
I notice, Soulfire, you didn’t say, “If you [are not a terrorist], why do you oppose it?” No, you said, “If you have nothing to hide, why do you oppose it?”

You mean that it’s okay with you for any of us to come into your house, your car, your business, make you strip, pilfer through your stuff, search through your computers, ask your family and friends what stupidities you did when younger and dumber, follow you wherever you go, see exactly what you’ve been up to, and then make it public? You really and truly have nothing to hide? You want us to believe that you have no private life?

You really envision a world where no one has any secrets, where everyone’s life is an open book, and their personal possessions are anyone else’s business? Come on! Have you no class?
~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry, to be so harsh, Soulfire. I sincerely mean it. But I’d rather be harsh to you now, and hopefully jumpstart you into a different line of thinking -- a line of thinking that will change your life for the better. I’d rather take a risk of your thinking me to be your personal enemy -- a goal which I do not have -- and also take the risk that maybe I can get through to you. And I’m serious here too. I see a passion in you that is worthy of developing. I’ve checked out some of your other posts, and I see you are capable of consideration. I’d just rather have such passion and consideration on the side of Freedom, not Tyranny.

You don’t have to be lost in a world being pro-Tyranny. There’s still time for you to switch to a more rational philosophy and method of life: Freedom. And this does not mean giving up your religion, of which you speak elsewhere. Please consider changing the path down which you are currently heading.
igor123d
I am firmly convinced that the actions of President Bush or rather those of his administration cannot be justified by current circumstances. The argument that these actions were within the present legal system is shady at best. The President did not want to endorse this action, he only proceeded so after it was clear that no public outrage would take place. Nevertheless, even if by some loophole the actions can be justified on purely legal grounds, from a moral perspective Bush has not fulfilled his duty of safeguarding the civil liberties of the nations, a duty entrusted to him as President. Whatever the circumstances may be, true freedom is more important than complete safety (which is merely an illusion in any case).
Soulfire
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
What if someone does have something to hide?

Soulfire wrote:
Well, the Patriot Act is meant to help Americans. If you have nothing to hide, why do you oppose it?

** What if someone is working at a business and discussing trade secrets on the phone? Shouldn’t they be able to hide their secrets till they decide to share?

** What if someone is a homophobe or a homosexual but doesn’t want anyone other than their close friends to know? Shouldn’t they be able to hide their secrets till they decide to share?

** What if someone is embarrassed about being an adult illiterate or a 40-year-old virgin -- or an ex-junkie or ex-socialist -- or even one who wishes they hadn’t Voted for Bush (or Kerry) (or at all) and have since moved on politically -- or maybe about not giving a hoot about the Super Bowl? Shouldn’t they be able to hide their secrets till they decide to share?
~~~~~~~~~~
The subject was illegal wiretapping of Americans, but since you chose to defend the whole Patriot Act, that opens up the issues of search and seizure without warrant, holding suspects incommunicado without charges or trials so they can’t even tell their family, friends, or attorney that they have been imprisoned, and taking away almost all of the Freedom upon which America was founded.

The main reason that Government is not allowed to tap phones, bug rooms, spy on, and otherwise invade the privacy of American citizens (without a court warrant) is because the founders of America understood that such power in the hands of Government was dangerous, and that any Government that so abuses the Freedom of its citizens is certain to become a Terrible Tyranny.

So, maybe you’d say that it’s only Government agents fighting terrorism that will get to listen to the wiretaps, so people’s personal information will be safe from the general public. As somewhat stated here, that’s pretty naive, considering how many “leaks” of information have come from supposedly secure Government sources. Remember, a secret once told is secret no more.
~~~~~~~~~~
Soulfire wrote:
No, you're too wrapped up in yourself to realize.

You have it backwards, Soulfire. You are the one, not those to whom you were speaking, who are “too wrapped up in yourself to realize.”
~~~~~~~~~~
I notice, Soulfire, you didn’t say, “If you [are not a terrorist], why do you oppose it?” No, you said, “If you have nothing to hide, why do you oppose it?”

You mean that it’s okay with you for any of us to come into your house, your car, your business, make you strip, pilfer through your stuff, search through your computers, ask your family and friends what stupidities you did when younger and dumber, follow you wherever you go, see exactly what you’ve been up to, and then make it public? You really and truly have nothing to hide? You want us to believe that you have no private life?

You really envision a world where no one has any secrets, where everyone’s life is an open book, and their personal possessions are anyone else’s business? Come on! Have you no class?
~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry, to be so harsh, Soulfire. I sincerely mean it. But I’d rather be harsh to you now, and hopefully jumpstart you into a different line of thinking -- a line of thinking that will change your life for the better. I’d rather take a risk of your thinking me to be your personal enemy -- a goal which I do not have -- and also take the risk that maybe I can get through to you. And I’m serious here too. I see a passion in you that is worthy of developing. I’ve checked out some of your other posts, and I see you are capable of consideration. I’d just rather have such passion and consideration on the side of Freedom, not Tyranny.

You don’t have to be lost in a world being pro-Tyranny. There’s still time for you to switch to a more rational philosophy and method of life: Freedom. And this does not mean giving up your religion, of which you speak elsewhere. Please consider changing the path down which you are currently heading.

Like I said, if you have something to hide, oppose it. But I doubt the gov't is going to go off sharing everyone's personal information, that's not what they are looking for, they are looking for people who might... I dunno... let's throw something out, fly airplanes into our buildings and kill thousands of Americans.

Maybe if the communications between terrorists had been intercepted by the gov't, as it would be under the Patriot Act, thousands of innocent Americans would not have lost their lives, and it's bound to happen again.

I am not Pro-Tyranny, I am Pro-American, I am Pro-Saving Lives, I am Pro-Silence the Terrorists.

My dream is not everyone's lives an open book. My dream is an end to terrorism, an end to the killing of the innocent.

The Patriot Act is not all that everyone seems to be cracking it up to be.
Soulfire
horseatingweeds wrote:
prongs_386 wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Soulfire wrote:


Sarcasm is getting old.. Confused


Ignorance is getting old too.

How am I being ignorant?

i believe you are being called ignorant for only thinking that they want to tap all the phone lines as a security measure against terrorism. They have pushed the fear of terrorism a huge way now and are using it to justify anything they want.
There would be hundreds of reason's why they would want to tap phone lines and terrorism is just one. Notice they justify it as a safety measure against terrorism, but won't write anything down saying that is the only thing that people could be prosecuted for.


Well said, I mean terrorism isn't that big of a deal. Bush obviously is tapping for other devious reasons. Cuz like, what would another terrorist attack do? Anyway, Oshama want a truce, I hope we can appease him and go back to the old days of complacency and reduced military spanding.

Yes, because of course, the deaths of 1000 innocent Americans isn't "that big of a deal." How obvious is it? Tell me ALL of his reasons, since you know so much. What would another attack do? Kill more people of course! This time it could be you, or someone close to you, or maybe someone you don't know and don't care about, but someone who is innocent and deserving of life. It's not our policy to negotiate with terrorists.
horseatingweeds
Soulfire wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
prongs_386 wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Soulfire wrote:


Sarcasm is getting old.. Confused


Ignorance is getting old too.

How am I being ignorant?

i believe you are being called ignorant for only thinking that they want to tap all the phone lines as a security measure against terrorism. They have pushed the fear of terrorism a huge way now and are using it to justify anything they want.
There would be hundreds of reason's why they would want to tap phone lines and terrorism is just one. Notice they justify it as a safety measure against terrorism, but won't write anything down saying that is the only thing that people could be prosecuted for.


Well said, I mean terrorism isn't that big of a deal. Bush obviously is tapping for other devious reasons. Cuz like, what would another terrorist attack do? Anyway, Oshama want a truce, I hope we can appease him and go back to the old days of complacency and reduced military spanding.

Yes, because of course, the deaths of 1000 innocent Americans isn't "that big of a deal." How obvious is it? Tell me ALL of his reasons, since you know so much. What would another attack do? Kill more people of course! This time it could be you, or someone close to you, or maybe someone you don't know and don't care about, but someone who is innocent and deserving of life. It's not our policy to negotiate with terrorists.


How old are you Soulfire? I assumed my sarcasm was evident by my "Cuz like" and "Oshama wants a truce".

Se-mo-do-no
jaysen
Has anyone thought that just maybe terrorists are NOT chatting on the phone 24/7 like a bunch of school girls discussing thier plans for world domination? Aside from stepping on everyones rights to privacy, what is this going to solve? The only terrorists they'd catch this way are the stupid ones... if any.

The real ones (read the ones they want to catch) i would think would be smart enough to find other ways to communicate... oh wait... they already do!

Quote:
For the President to authorize the NSA to bypass the courts and spy on citizens without a warrant is very dangerous and very illegal. We have spent most of the last century expending hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars to fight against dictatorships, and now we are accelerating down the entrance ramp to unchecked executive power ourselves.
S3nd K3ys
Soulfire wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Soulfire wrote:


Sarcasm is getting old.. Confused


Ignorance is getting old too.

How am I being ignorant?


You're not. I was referring to someone else. You're outside the box looking in, that's not ignorance.
The Philosopher Princess
horseatingweeds, I totally realize that the things to which I’m responding now, were stated before the Judiciary Committee's hearings that aired today. (I listened to today's proceedings and look forward to more. Yes, I'm weird, but I like getting things straight from the horse's mouth {Shocked} and I can also multitask.) So, I’m writing with more info than you had for your posts. Given that acknowledgment . . .
~~~~~~~~~~
I think we now have a better idea that Congress thinks it's worse than you/we thought.

horseatingweeds wrote:
In an attempt to protect the P’s (I tend to believe him) the president overstepped his authority. Not by much, I mean, not by enough to anger congress but enough to cause the people and their press (does this count as a P) to reprimand.

Of course we knew the (Partisan) Democrats would show disdain towards Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. But I was surprised that even a couple of the (Partisan) Republicans were fairly disgruntled. During the 1st round of questioning, the Repos were mostly only throwing Nerf balls, but then Specter and Graham warmed up to throwing some fast balls, while other Repos stayed with the easy pitches.
~~~~~~~~~~
horseatingweeds wrote:
A great example of check – and – balance.

Again, not really. (I hope I’m not falling into one of your tongues-in-cheekies, for you should never ask a Princess her age Smile .) I would like to respond seriously in any case.

It’s now been publicized that the Executive Branch considers the leaking of their warrantless Personal invasions to be criminal. (Gonzales was authorized to speak for Bushy in this hearing {and that’s why he often preferred to play dodge ball, as was duly pointed out today}.) Gonzales admitted that they will be working to Prosecute the leaker(s) and even the NYTimes and whomever Published the info.

horseatingweeds, would you agree that a true checks-and-balances system is built in, or at least inherent, (e.g., the 3 branches of the US Government)? But this counter-Constitutional wire-tapping, since it only came out by chance, is not a valid case of checks-and-balances? And this makes us truly wonder what other abominations have not come out.
~~~~~~~~~~
horseatingweeds wrote:
I don’t think our buddy Bush will be doing any more taps without a court order any time soon.

We now know that not to be true. The Executive Branch believes they’re fine and dandy and have no intentions of stopping what they’ve been doing in that area.
~~~~~~~~~~
Concerning your comment on my reference to the Franklin quote, I’m going to try to track down the truth of it. Thanks for raising the issue.
~~~~~~~~~~
horseatingweeds wrote:
The other point here is that we are at war with a very slippery and unorthodox enemy. Slippery and unorthodox measures must be made to insure liberty but not at the cost of liberty. This would just be pointless.

I really hope you believe that (and I think you do), because you said it outstandingly. If only our defense were “slippery and unorthodox”, that might be acceptable. The Problem with believing the sincerity of Bushy’s defense is that he also uses “slippery and unorthodox” offense.
~~~~~~~~~~
horseatingweeds wrote:
Additionally, being one who voted for Bush, I do apologies for my part in neglecting the court order prior to the wire tap. I will do my best to insure that it doesn’t happen again.

See that you do that! ( Laughing )
~~~~~~~~~~
By the way, I really enjoy your tonguettes-in-cheekettes. The . . .

horseatingweeds wrote:
little red wagon painted - KabOOOm

. . . was especially precious!
horseatingweeds
philosipher princes wrote:
.....


Hmmm….. more info indeed.

After a bit of a bit of research and collecting the newer info presented; is see that my initial assumptions where naive. Initial assumption being that Bush had more or less neglected the court order prior to the “wire tap”. However, in this case there was no “wire tap” nor an action that is currently covered under our current law.

These “wire taps” in actuality are a system of monitoring communication hubs. In other word, the places were our phone calls and emails are routed as they leave or enter the US are being monitored. Monitoring, meaning the NSA can “google” these incoming and outgoing messages. This inherently would be impossible to get a court order prior to monitoring because the info from the monitoring is the evidence for the monitoring.

I wish I could find some Ps in here.

Additionally, the executive thrice, as he has stated in the sate of the union, has no intention of discontinuing these monitorings. Gonzales has also stated that these monitorings where only of al-Qaida. (with magic I guess) I can’t say I disagree with it. (people generally refer to my key word optimizations as magic simply because they are unaware, this could easily be the case) Since 9/11 our soil has not been attacked so someone has been doing a good job of making activities difficult for those who would try and this monitoring may very well be a big part of that.

The trouble is that this has a lot to do with unprecedented technology. We have no laws governing this type of super monitoring and by the time we have them, technology will have advance beyond those laws. Laws are needed as reliance upon the NSA official’s professionalism, in my opinion, is a good five or six saltines without a drink of water.

I could easily see an entire government agency dedicated to this new frontier. I wonder what those SAC guys are up to? This affectively is the current war front. Maybe SIC (strategic information command) will due.

So I guess if one has something to hide, hide it stupid. And if one doesn’t, think harder stupid because you probably do, will, and / or should, in our system, have the right to keep personals hidden. If you don’t want anyone to read it, try US mail.

I wonder how exactly the NSA is monitoring these communications. Listening for the word “bomb” or “filthy-pig-Americans”, I wouldn’t imagine to be effective.

As for asking your age Philosopher Princess, until you scratch of an ill conceived post, which I don’t foresee as your posts are rather delightful, even when I emphatically disagree, I will continue assuming that you are a twenty two year old law student with a degree in philosophy. I am also glad you enjoy my oddly humored posts as I certainly amuse myself with them.
The Philosopher Princess
Here's how I had put it:

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
During the 1st round of questioning [of Gonzales], the Repos were mostly only throwing Nerf balls

Sanchez of Reason puts it even better:

Julian Sanchez of ReasonOnline wrote:
Unlike his Republican colleagues, who occasionally remembered that conservatives are supposed to retain a modicum of skepticism about unchecked government power, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) kept an indulgent smile plastered on his face through several rounds of interrogatory fellatio so shameless that "If you were a vegetable, Mr. Attorney General, what sort of vegetable would you be?" would have constituted a hardball question.

In other words, Sessions is a Repo Party fanatic not even pretending to be looking for the truth, whatever that may be.
~~~~~~~~~~
But on the other side of the bile, the Demo Party liners also need serious improvement.

Julian Sanchez of ReasonOnline wrote:
And Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) managed to ask about a dozen variants of "Why didn't you tell us during your confirmation hearings that you believe the president can break the law?"—apparently unable to wrap his head around the notion that Gonzales, correctly or incorrectly, doesn't believe the NSA program to have violated the law.
~~~~~~~~~~
You can read the whole article at http://www.reason.com/links/links020706.shtml.
~~~~~~~~~~
Does anyone besides myself understand the illogic of having Government checking up on Government -- and that being what we rely on?

You cannot expect a Monopoly to make sound decisions.
The Philosopher Princess
I have discussed the concept of doublespeak elsewhere on Frihost, a method used by Politicians to fool their followers further. (And it can also be used by pseudo scientists and other fake experts.) Here is one example, which I couldn't have stated better. I blued a portion for you.

http://www.counterthink.org/017591.html wrote:
The terror of President Bush: How one word granted one man so much power and control (commentary)

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2006 by Mike Adams

Following accelerating criticism that the Bush Administration's domestic spying program violated every possible U.S. law and Constitutional amendment, the Bush Administration has now renamed its blatantly illegal domestic spying program the "terrorist surveillance program." Fox News has already adopted the moniker, resorting to classic Orwellian Newsspeak to convince viewers that since this illegal government operation contains the word "terrorist," it must be okay.

Where would George Bush be today without the word "terror," by the way? That single word, it seems, is solely responsible for Bush's continued popularity among simple-minded Americans. Without the word "terror," Bush would have no war, no foreign policy, no justification for decimating the Constitution, and nothing to talk about in his speeches. His entire presidency since 9/11, a few observant people are realizing, is really based on just two things: terror and tyranny. And he's using the former to achieve the latter.

One word can do a lot for a politician, especially if it is repeated like a political mantra. I'm not exactly sure how many times Bush has used the word "terror" or its derivations, because that would require actually listening to all the Bush speeches -- an act that would almost certainly cause the permanent IQ reduction of anyone foolish enough to engage in such activities.

Without question, Bush has invoked the "terror" word with near religious zealotry in his campaigns to simultaneously overthrow foreign nations and domestic civil liberties. Never before has so much evil sprung from the repeated invocation of a single word.

The Terror of the Masses

The outright evil of one man is not nearly as surprising (nor frightening) as the collective evil of the people who go along with him. Dumbfounded Conservatives all across the country blindly stroll into history along the same well-trodden path followed by Hitler's fascist supporters.

It's a well-worn path: First you create an imaginary enemy to justify war. Then you strip away the civil liberties of your own citizens and launch domestic spying programs to keep everyone in a constant state of fear. Next you manipulate the propaganda to tell everyone what to think. The torturing of "enemy combatants" is already underway, and it won't be long before the clockwork arrest of "dissenting" Americans begins.


None of this talk is even in the realm of conspiracy theories anymore. It's practically a play-by-play account of exactly what the Bush Administration is doing. Under the Clinton Administration, a secret domestic spying program being discovered would have been Conservatives' call to hang the poor man from a tree, but under Bush, Conservatives go right along with any liberty-destroying action, no matter how ludicrous or illegal.

That all this is happening right before our eyes, with such obvious historical parallels to the rise of Hitler, is practically unbelievable. The rhetoric is almost exactly the same, except it's in eighth-grade English rather than German. But warmongering and global imperialism need no language translations, because the message communicated by an imperial soldier shoving a rifle in your face is pretty much universal. Both Hitler and Bush call it "freedom," and both explained their invasions of foreign nations as "liberating their people," but students of history know better. (Does anyone read history anymore?)

You can read the rest at http://www.counterthink.org/017591.html.
jaysen
I am still amazed that people honestly think this is a good idea...

1) I will bet any of you any amount of money that you'd like, that the terrorists probably watch the news too... they kinda know that they could be evesdropped on, and wouldn't risk talking on the phone.

2) even before this announcement, anyone with any amount of common sense whatsoever KNEW one of the first things law enforcement agencies did was tap your phone lines when you were under suspicion of something..

3)who the hell needs the telephone to communicate anyway? between encryption, ham radios, e-mail, snail mail, two way radios, meeting in person, putting ads in the paper (which was proven to be done by terrorists in the past) quite simply... if they don't want you to hear it, chances are you won't...

If bush asked you to bend over because he can think better after he drains his nutsack would you do that too? What is this actually going to solve? Yes IF it would actually be a useful tool to stop terrorism i'd be all for it, but it's not.
horseatingweeds
jaysen wrote:
I am still amazed that people honestly think this is a good idea...

1) I will bet any of you any amount of money that you'd like, that the terrorists probably watch the news too... they kinda know that they could be evesdropped on, and wouldn't risk talking on the phone.

2) even before this announcement, anyone with any amount of common sense whatsoever KNEW one of the first things law enforcement agencies did was tap your phone lines when you were under suspicion of something..

3)who the hell needs the telephone to communicate anyway? between encryption, ham radios, e-mail, snail mail, two way radios, meeting in person, putting ads in the paper (which was proven to be done by terrorists in the past) quite simply... if they don't want you to hear it, chances are you won't...

If bush asked you to bend over because he can think better after he drains his nutsack would you do that too? What is this actually going to solve? Yes IF it would actually be a useful tool to stop terrorism i'd be all for it, but it's not.


Your points are quite valid jaysen, but that animated gif of yours is very distracting....
The Philosopher Princess
I don't have a personal history like this guy, but I can sure relate!

This is from http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0217-31.htm. I added the colors.

Common Dreams News Center wrote:
Published on Friday, February 17, 2006, by CommonDreams.org

What Happened To My Country?

by Steve Osborn


I grew up an American, and proud of it. I was taught in school about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. My brother was a Merchant Marine Officer during the war and had three ships sunk beneath him. We beat the Nazis, the Fascists and the Japanese and made the world safe for democracy. After the war came Nuremberg and the assurance that things like the holocaust could never happen again. The Marshal Plan helped to rebuild the shattered portions of the world. America, Democracy, compassion and help. It was good to be an American. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sad, but necessary to end the war and save lives, we were told.

We read George Orwell’s 1984, which could happen in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, but we could never have thought police and endless war here in the United States. Then came the Cold War, McCarthy, Korea, and later on Vietnam. My service time crossed those wars, but I thanked my stars I didn’t have to fight in them. I was at Bikini for the Hydrogen Bomb tests in 1956, which taught me the unthinkable horror of nuclear war.

Vietnam taught us the danger and folly of going to war on a false pretext. Tonkin Gulf was to be a lesson to us all, as was the intended impeachment of Nixon for violating the law and the Constitution. We wouldn’t let that happen again; no president was ever going to spy on his own people again, or persecute people who didn’t agree with him or his policies.

Yes, the United States was a nation of great wealth. A nation that took care to see to the freedom and well being of its citizens, and welcomed the downtrodden foreigner to the new land. It was a nation that pioneered the exploration of space and gloried in the advance of science. I was proud to be an American!

My God! What has happened to my nation? My nation that no longer pays more than lip service to its Constitution and Bill of Rights, which have been a beacon to the world for over two centuries. My nation that unilaterally discards treaties that were the hope of a world of peace, guided by law and diplomacy. My nation that will wage a war of aggression against a far off nation that was no threat to it, but that has lots of oil. My nation that gives all of its wealth to the rich and is satisfied to leave its citizens to starve, homeless, unemployed and sickly.

What happened to that Constitution that so wisely divided the government into three separate units, to provide a system of checks and balances against any one branch usurping power? How did we wind up with a President that refers to the Constitution that he swore to protect and defend as “just a goddamned piece of paper,” and a Congress that seems willing to rubber stamp any giveaway the President demands? How did we find ourselves with a Supreme Court that will set aside the Constitution in favor of unlimited presidential power for the duration?


Now I live in an America I don’t dare leave for fear of being spat upon, shot, bombed or kidnaped. I am looked upon as a citizen of a rogue nation that has no concept or respect for any law except bullying and strength. I need a passport even to visit Canada, which was to be our sister nation with open borders forever. I must expect to be required to show my “papers” at any time, to any official. I must accept that the government can break into my house and rifle my belongings and papers any time it wishes on the thinnest of excuses and it is not even required to let me know it has violated my home and my privacy. I must accept the fact that the government can listen in to my private conversations, my phone, my e-mail, can probably read my snail mail if they wish and can put a gag order on anyone who has information on me so I may not even be made aware that I am being spied upon. George Orwell’s absolute dictatorship has crept in to my home and my life and thrown out my beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights. The difference between the United States, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy is steadily and inexorably diminishing and the people are letting it happen while they remain paralyzed with fear. Fear incited by the gang that runs the White House and their cronies in the propaganda ministry that used to be our last bulwark against tyranny; our once free press.

So now my pride in America is for our past; my sadness for our present; my fear for our future. I am no longer proud to be an American, but I have no place to go.

Stephen M. Osborn (theplace@whidbey.net) is a freelance writer living on Camano Island in the Pacific Northwest. He is an "Atomic Vet." (Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll 1956, ) who has been very active working and writing for nuclear disarmament and world peace. He is a retired Fire Battalion Chief, lifelong sailor, writer, poet, philosopher, historian and former newspaper columnist.
DoctorBeaver
As a resident of the U.K. I don't want to comment on the situation re Bush. However, it's not just the U.S. administration that is eroding civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism. The Blair government is doing exactly the same. There was a situation a few months ago where an elderly man was ejected from a hall where the prime minister was speaking. The man was heckling him & the law invoked to remove him from the hall was 1 that had been introduced as part of anti-terror legislation just a week or so previously. There have also been other examples where the citizen's right to demonstrate has been curtailed under these new laws.
We now face the introduction of ID cards which the government claims will help combat terrorism. Really? ID cards didn't prevent the Madrid train bombings. Plus, carrying these cards will not be compulsory. What a joke! So a policeman sees someone behaving in a suspicious manner & asks to see his ID card. "Sorry, officer, I don't have it with me". What does the cop do then? Yeah, it's really going to help, isn't it! The only people who will carry their cards with them will be law-abiding citizens.

As for the "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" brigade, that is a totally bogus & absurd argument. Would they want a surveillance camera in every room in their house? Well, if they've got nothing to hide...

The U.K. now has more surveillance cameras than any other country. Considering its size relative to the U.S. and that we have only 1/5th the population, that's a frightening statistic. But have those cameras stopped crime or prevented terrorism? Have they hell! The London bombers were caught on CCTV but as they weren't doing anything illegal or acting suspiciously, they were ignored.

It was mentioned above that terrorists probably don't discuss their plans over the phone. That's a very valid point. There are plenty of encrypted IM systems available, private WAN software, etc. Why would they risk anyone listening in on a public network?

As I said initially, I don't feel as if I can comment on the U.S. situation per se; but certainly there are many similarities between the actions of the Bush administration & those of the U.K. government. It's my belief that the anti-terror excuse is simply that - an excuse; an excuse to exercise more power & control over the lives of ordinary citizens.
Srs2388
well, it isn't as if he is listening in on every call made he is only listening in to the ones that could pose dangerious to the USA, I agree some people can think its wrong some can think nothing is wrong but thats just the way you look at it, that dosn't make you ignorant if you agree or disagree with something thats just your opinion your freedom of speech that can never be taken away from you
I do however think he is wrong from the perspective of being unconstituional
(excuse spelling)
but however he's protecing us so there isn't anything unconstitutional about that well at least I dont think so
The Philosopher Princess
I guess y’all saw US Senator Feingold is trying to gather support for a censure of Bush on the wiretapping issue? All the wonderful “Whereas...”s can be found in PDF form here and HTML form here. They culminate with “Now, therefore, be it”...

Quote:
Resolved, That the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, his failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his Administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program.

It’ll be interesting to see what comes of this -- whether it SIZZLES or FIZZLES. I thought you might also want to check out http://www.democrats.com/senate-censure for their opinion of who fits
Censure Champions”,
Cowering Democrats”,
Bushkissing Democrats”, and
Goosestepping Republicans”. [Category names by them. Blue and red {state} rainboxing by me.]

Okay, that’s from the Demo side. Who has something sizzling or fizzling from the Repo side? Smile
Related topics
England to be bombed again?
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
Why is the USA in Iraq?
Bush Violates Terrorists' Nuclear Privacy
Bush could seize absolute control of U.S. government
MLK Jr's 'Bash Bush' event omitted some vital information.
NATO in final stages of prepping for strikes against Iran
Articles of Impeachment for President Bush
the 9/11 truth
Bush Praises Iraqi Gov't, Asks for Patience
Chemical Attacks - by US Forces // Impeach Bush
The Middle East Conflict
IBM profiting from the Nazi in 2nd world war
Federal Judge: Bush's wiretapping program was illegal.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.