Bush authorises spying within US

Seems like a well timed leak, to detract from the momentous elections in Iraq. Expect a investigation into the leaker. Expect the democrats to downplay the leaking of classified info by bringing up Plame.

Those who leak criminal activity should be considered whistleblowers and protected thusly. Criminal activity should not be able to hide behind the wall of classification.

Extroardinary events require extroardinary measures. Blame the senators who gave the president certain authorisations so he could abuse them. And face it, it's a littly spying, it's not like he's torturing people, or killing 30.000 innocent civilians in the process. Btw, the fact that we haven't had any terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 is the best proof that whatever action the president takes is the right one.


Btw, anybody else see Donald Rumsfeld on the O'Reilly Factor? I had to walk away neauseated (sp?) from my computer after 5mins, but I thought it was funny when he said that the terrorists would win if we'd change or way of life (or something to that extent). Luckily that didn't happen.

I am old enough to remember the rationale behind the label "Evil Empire"

Yes that's right! The real and final victim of 911 is the american values.

There is no rational for this kind of thinking! The fact that we have not been attacked here on american soil since simply means the terrorists have blown their wad. There wasn't anything else coming. How many times have we had an alert and nothing came of it?

The Bush administation uses this situation to their advantage to push through an agenda of their own design. Some of which have little or nothing to do with a terrorist threat. The very fact that some people eat this up is sickening.

After all the terrorists got what they wanted. A very paranoid country controlled by fear who's lost the respect of most of the rest of the world through their own actions. They didn't need to attack again.

So if the president can authorize extra-legal domestic spying just cause he thinks it's a good idea and the answer to concerns is "I have to be free to do what I want to save American lives" (with the unspoken addendum "You have to trust me, of course the government would never abuse its power"), then why have any laws at all?

If we are obliged to simply "trust" the president to do what's right, and he can do whatever he wants, then we're clearly wasting time with this whole "check and balances", "rule of law", and "constitution" thing.

If we're serious about fighting terrorism, we should just proclaim Bush Suprmeme Protector of the Virtue of the Fatherland, give him carte blanch, and be done with it, right?

Because that's what's happening, and that's what anyone who cares to defend this is defending.

Why leave it at the federal level? Everyone agrees crime is bad; I have a much better chance of being killed by a street crime than being killed by terrorists.

If the primary good is harm reduction, trumping niceties like "rights", then it would seem it would be prudent to give police departments broad discretionary powers to, well, do whatever they think might be helpful in stopping criminals. Maybe preemptive round-ups, secret detentions, summary executions, round-the-clock surveillance of everybody. Whatever.

Because police departments too have a solemn duty to "protect the American people" and they actually have a chance to actually save lives on a day to day basis; so I would have thought that we might want to start with liberating them from all this law bullshit, given that the new thinking that "whatever it takes" is now the first line of the Bill of Rights.

Seems like "9/11 changed everything" just becomes more of a bitter punch line with every passing day, doesn't it?

addabox, you guys have to realize that there are three branches of government:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051217/D8EI8O180.html

Um, so the separation of power means that Congress is free to criticize the president after the fact, and the president is free to tell Congress to fuck off.

Well, that's alright then.

I would think the timing would have been better a little more than a year ago, don't you think... I can't see Bush winning the presidency by spying on the American Public, do you?

I really only have one question:

Do you believe it is right for the government to reduce our freedoms without telling us, without asking our permission, and without reparations?

If you do, you are a bad American.

This act by the US has as much to do with protecting us from terrorists as it has to do with protecting us from people that, in light of history, will seem to have done good.


An act like this by the British government two hundred years ago would have resulted in the burning of a post-office. Why are we such lambs?




(being led to the slaughter)...

I don't think it's right, but that seems to be the way it's playing out -- if you include Congress' feigned outrage.

The president informs a very few members of Congress what he's doing, and it is illegal for them to reveal anything they were told, even to other members of Congress, and even if they disagree with what he's doing.

I think you're all wet, why tell them in the first place if this isn't an example those two branches working in union, as designed? I would imagine that there is a straighforward legal explanation either way.

You think members of Congress are allowed to publicly state that the administration was doing these things?

no idea -- but that will probably change as this unfolds.

I suspect that, like the Gitmo charges, we will be flooded with front-end accusations but when it becomes clear that things are within the norm, it will go begging for coverage.

Well they can't. Three or four members of Congress were briefed on it, protested it, but couldn't do anything about it.

I think your Bush-Hate is getting the best of you.

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

So a foreign power or party sends people acting in their interest into our country. This is of course possible because of our lax immigration controls and wide open borders. We intercept international communications coming into these parties and it is now a "domestic matter" where foreign terrorists are afforded the same Constitutional rights as citizens while trying to kill said citizens.


Perhaps you should read that document you proclaim to hold so dear. Understanding it might help your case.


You're ranting to hard again and starting to get spittle on yourself.


Why make any distinctions at all? I mean I'm sure all our troops didn't get warrents when they broke into various homes that they were returning fire against them or even breaking into them to kill the enemy. Why note that war policies and police policies or citizens and enemy combatants are different.

Messy distictions like those I just mentioned just get in the way of the hate. It is so much easier to hate and rant when you don't have to think at all.

The rest of your nonsense isn't worth my time. I already feel like an idiot for even devoting this much to your nonsense.

Nick

The Senate Intelligence comittee "couldn't do anything about it"?

really?

It's not the committee, it's a few select members, like the majority and minority leaders (though I believe Reid said this morning he wasn't briefed) and the committee chairs. And no, they can't do anything about it, because it is illegal for anyone in a closed session to discuss the meeting with anyone else, even other members of the intelligence committee. Who knows, maybe it was one of them that leaked it. But did you hear what Bush said in his address yesterday:
How is Congress supposed to do anything about it when Bush says that no one is allowed to even know about it? They're supposed to just get really, really mad?

Jimmac, you're consistent...I'll give you that.

You don't know whether or not Al-Queda had or has anything else coming. It's just an opinion, one which has no substansiation whatsoever. You literally just made it up and presented it as fact. If you're going to take issue with the tactic Bush has authorized, that's fine. Just don't do it by making stuff up.

It looks like the committee was, among other 'top leaders'. The whole idea of an Intelligence committee and the 'not telling anybody' could go for nearly anything they handle. They are the oversight for this very sort of thing.

...this quote is from the House Intelligence Committee website -- the Senate's is probably very similar:

Since I just learned that House has an intelligence committee as well as the Senate; I'm going to zip it until I know more.

How could you possibly know how they reacted? And considering that it was all completely legal, why would they respond as you seem to think?

I do, by the way, completely agree about the whistleblower thing - but that's not the case here.

I could "possibly know" because, after Bush confirmed this and stated that members of Congress had been informed, Pelosi released a statement: "I was advised of President Bush's decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities shortly after he made it and have been provided with updates on several occasions.

The Bush Administration considered these briefings to be notification, not a request for approval. As is my practice whenever I am notified about such intelligence activities, I expressed my strong concerns during these briefings."
It was all completely legal? Whew. That's quite a relief. I'm glad I know the truth now.

What's funny is that all the Republicans I saw this morning talk about this - people like Graham and Specter and Barr - were unequivocal that there was no legal justification that they knew of, that the president cannot override a statute like the FISA statute, and that they wanted hearings to determine what happened. The only Bush supporters I've seen try to defend this have been those who have posted in this thread. Congratulations.

This is so funny. There's a rubber-stamp court that burps out subpoenas like this without thinking whenever any president asks for it. But Bush felt he shouldn't need to ask for it:


link.

And yesterday the post reported that the NSA was doing this before Bush's secret executive order in 2002. "One of the curious things about the program is that there is already a special court that issues national-security-related subpoenas and has a much lower threshold for evidence than regular courts. That court has rarelyif everturned down a subpoena request."


link

So that's Bush disregarding the 3rd branch of the S guv. Perhaps because the 2nd has disregarded him.


This kind of perspective is what is lost on neoconners who confuse the term "objective reporting" with "objectionable reporting".

--B

No problem at all with this. All Mosques should be observed, as should all prominent Muslims and perhaps most Muslims living in the US. We must know where they get their money and what they do with it. This is very important in the battle against terrorist extremists. It may also be wise to observe the activities of those on he far left, particularity the Hollywood elites.

Ok chicken little.

However it's been quite awhile and the ineffective stuff Bush has been up to has nothing to do wiith it!

That's quite as clear as no WMD.

The more this sort of thing goes on ( just like the WMD scenero ) the more the odds go up that I'm right.

Within the norm of what?

Would you trust Hillary Clinton with this kind of power? If Michael Moore were elected President, would you trust him? Bill Clinton? John Kerry?

There's a word for this. Guess what it is.

PS. It's not nice.

Bush-supporter?

Republican Party: Your Freedoms for your life (tm).

* Invading a sovereign nation unprovoked? Check.
* Torture? Check.
* Videotaping/photographing torture? Check.
* Making fun of veterans and wounded soldiers? Check.
* Spying on American citizens without warrants? Check.
* Cronyism? Check.
* Cronyism with devastating consequences? Check.

Now, now, let's leave Michael Moore out of this.

Moore wore one of those purple band-aids at the Republican National Convention?

....No, wait....I'm wrong, Moore targeted amputees --no purple Band-Aids -- and there was no multimillion-dollar payoff or a trip to the Oscars to go with that.

Michael Moore mocked amputees at the Republican National Convention? I thought that was just the Republicans holding McCain up as an example of why torture works.

Hrm.

Anyway. Too bad my point wasn't "ways Democrats are kind of nearly as bad as Republicans."

They have you guys defending torture and spying on citizens, for God's sake.

Wow, Michael Moore made fun of amputees and got a multi-million dollar payoff? And I bet he figured mocking amputees was a sure fire way to get an Oscar nomination, seeings how the liberal Hollywood elites are famously anti-amputee.

And dude, that totally counter-balances the dismantling of the constitution, so it's an excellent point!

I'll bet he wore a little handicapped parking sticker around his neck, too. Maybe took one of those wheelchair decals and stuck it on his face and kept yelling "I have a boo boo!"

That fat bastard. Bush should start executing American citizens without trial just to balance the scales.