Jump to content

"Domestic Spying" or protecting our azzes


{GD}Independent
 Share

Recommended Posts

OK, we've had enough Senseless Spam to last us a million years. Time for something important:

 

Do you believe the media B$ that President Bush is spying on us, or do you think that, just maybe, he's trying to prevent another 9/11 by being vigilant?

 

Did you know that the "spying program" he's been accused of inventing goes back all the way to Jimmy Carter, and has been utilized by every president since?

 

Bush is accused of authorizing the NSA (No Such Agency) to conduct wiretaps on people *already suspected of colluding with our enemies* who are *making overseas calls to countries with terrorist ties.* President Clinton rolled out the Carnivore program, which read *EACH AND EVERY E-MAIL EVERY PERSON ON AMERICAN SOIL SENT TO ANYONE, ANYWHERE.*

 

Bush is under attack by the left for violating our civil liberties. Do you know of *anyone* whose civil liberties have been violated? Do you recall that Franklin D. Roosevelt placed 110,000 Japanese AMERICANS in internment camps during WWII? Did you know that he also ordered that EVERY letter sent home by American servicemen be read by authorities just to be sure there was no funny business being transacted via that vector?

 

Please, when you read or listen to the mainstream media in this country and elsewhere, understand that they're only telling you half of every story. And that's on a good day.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Did you know that the "spying program" he's been accused of inventing goes back all the way to Jimmy Carter, and has been utilized by every president since?

CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

Here's what Clinton signed:

 

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

 

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?

 

the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers." Translation: You can't search American citizens.

 

and there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Translation: You can't search American citizens.

 

Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. "Physical searches," as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.

 

CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

And now, Carter's turn:

 

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

 

Here, Carter refers to "electronic surveillance," rather than "physical searches" like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:

 

the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.

 

there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.

 

Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law.

(source - sorry about the partisan source, but for some reason freerepublic doesn't have these details)

 

Bush is accused of authorizing the NSA (No Such Agency)
NSA (40000 people)- bigger than the CIA (16-20000), bigger than the FBI (26000)

 

to conduct wiretaps on people *already suspected of colluding with our enemies* who are *making overseas calls to countries with terrorist ties.*
1. It's both domestic and international communications (source)

2. As mentioned above, it's without warrant, so if there is any suspicion, it's certainly not confirmed.

 

President Clinton rolled out the Carnivore program, which read *EACH AND EVERY E-MAIL EVERY PERSON ON AMERICAN SOIL SENT TO ANYONE, ANYWHERE
1. It still requires a warrant, and therefore is targeted for specific emails

2. It's specifically designed to filter out information they're not supposed to see(source)

 

Do you know of *anyone* whose civil liberties have been violated?
Rhetorical question? Since it's not known who is being tapped, why or how, it could even be you.

 

Franklin D. Roosevelt placed 110,000 Japanese AMERICANS in internment camps during WWII? Did you know that he also ordered that EVERY letter sent home by American servicemen be read by authorities just to be sure there was no funny business being transacted via that vector?
There have been people in history who did even worse things. That doesn't mean it's ok to do anything up to that point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote from Goo: "NSA (40000 people)- bigger than the CIA (16-20000), bigger than the FBI (26000)"

 

Whoosh! Right over your head. This shows that, while you can cut and paste from radical leftist web sites, you have no underlying knowledge to rely upon. Of Course the NSA exists! It's been a joke nearly from its inception, however, that the agency is so secret that it's TLA stands for "No Such Agency."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sonic Goo' date='Jan 6 2006, 11:02 AM' post='24338']

 

 

There have been people in history who did even worse things. That doesn't mean it's ok to do anything up to that point.

 

 

Of course that's true. My thesis was that you can't trust the leftist media in this country to be fair to Bush. If they were interested in fairness or objectivity, they would have to mention that, in war time, presidents have often had to restrict civil liberties. If they were to point out FDR's actions, it would bring some healthy perspective into play. They won't do that, though, because all they care about is trying to turn public opinion away from Bush. There are countless examples of this practice. One other example would be that the press has the public convinced that we're damn near in a recession, when the truth is that our economy is roaring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Val, I wonder if you would have those issues if things were reported fairly, or if you've been influenced by a biased media. I'd like to hear your reasons, if you don't mind?

 

Sonic Goo' date='Jan 6 2006, 03:07 PM' post='24396']

If you feel so bothered by the liberal media, maybe you could make a thread about that? You know, come up with a recent event to use as the occasion, do some research into it, come up with some links people won't have seen before, maybe even looking at it from an interesting angle?

 

 

Uh, let's see: the media thought it would be great if they could make Bush look bad for Katrina so they talked about 10,000 dead (all black, of course) and a city that would never again exist, and that it was all Bush's fault. Turns out, if there's blame to be laid, a lot of it goes on the shoulders of the mayor and governor. I, personally, think Mother Nature had something to do with it. Oh, yeah, and there were less than 1000 killed, not that you heard the media making any huge apologies for overhyping, or anything. After all, regardless of the truth, if people remember that Bush killed 10,000 black people in new orleans, that's great, right?

 

Here's another: based on unsubstantiated rumor, the media blares a couple of days ago that the miners were alive. Well, they were wrong again, but they don't accept any blame for running with a fake story. Now they're claiming that Bush is to blame for not caring more about mine safety.

 

Um, let's see: GORE WINS!!!!!!! Wrong, beeeeatch. Wishful thinking.

 

Um, let's see: KERRY WINS!!!!! Wrong again.

 

 

How about "Our experts say that US soldiers cannot take the heat in Iraq, and if we go to war there, we should expect to see upwards of 50,000 dead Americans." Now the media waits breathlessly for every milestone death. "good news, everyone, we hit the 2500 mark yesterday!!! Yay, this makes Bush look bad!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, see this is a problem which is probably even worse here in Norway (and >Europe in general, I imagine). Of course a President and especially the one of the USA will face scrutiny in most his actions simply because they have a huge impact on people's lives. Nevertheless I think the media has gotten very caught up in the role of 'exposer of flaws'. Chances are they are even more eager to pursure Bush's flawed or unpopular decisions because the media is generally dominated by left wingers, but in Norway the new socialist government is really facing the same kind of nitpicking into any decision or statement. If it can be criticised in any way, it will be.

 

I think the media has become completely uncritical and braindead on this; I don't believe in criticism just for criticism's sake, and especially not when it's against the relatively harmless or innocent opinions or actions of people who sacrifice their blood, sweat and tears trying to do a good job. At the end of the day even GWB is human. The "domestic spying" could be an example of this... It's a perfectly valid and very important discussion - but in their zeal to place the blame, the media pointlessly turn it into a personal issue with Bush. This in turn leaves them stuck on one view point and one side of the discussion, unable to actually take the real debate. But I guess that's too much to ask. Sigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knix: those are the kinds of criteria I'd say make up a good post. What would yours be?

 

GDI: you want to make this thread about that issue? we're not gonna talk about the tapping issue anymore?

 

Spacko: first you say "I think the media has gotten very caught up in the role of 'exposer of flaws'" but then you say "I think the media has become completely uncritical and braindead". That sounds contradictory. When is something "criticism just for criticism's sake"? Is the topic at hand, warrantless spying, not a hugely important issue? Is it not George W. Bush who is responsible for this? Then why not criticise him for it?

 

Surak: to quote an American comedian, "the facts are biased" :D:P:D:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knix' date='Jan 8 2006, 04:58 AM' post='24705']

Anyone where you don't post ;)

 

lol, i dont get it. Sonic for a change, makes a good post and the i've still got to see you make a good response and your saying Sonic makes bad posts? :lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sonic Goo' date='Jan 7 2006, 03:46 PM' post='24537']

Spacko: first you say "I think the media has gotten very caught up in the role of 'exposer of flaws'" but then you say "I think the media has become completely uncritical and braindead". That sounds contradictory. When is something "criticism just for criticism's sake"? Is the topic at hand, warrantless spying, not a hugely important issue? Is it not George W. Bush who is responsible for this? Then why not criticise him for it?

 

Uncritical in their criticism. In addition to scrutinizing everyone else, the media should scrutinize themselves in a world where they have more and more power over what people care about and know of. Not digging into both sides of an issue but just plastering it all over the front page as a "Bush screw-up" is arrogant and without effort to actually enlight the general public. Take this surveillance of suspected terrorists... Civil rights is important. Privacy and freedom of speech is good. But tapping these phone calls and reading these e-mails is hardly something that Bush has security USA doing for the fun of it. It IS an attempt to get one step ahead of terrorists so that they can stop terrorists from killing hundreds or thousands of innocents. Safe as I am from the terrorism I could try to protect the privacy of those planning to kill others at little risk, but hey, lives are at stake. Innocent civilian lives are right at this moment being targeted by terrorists... And they could be calling each other right now. I am not about to lift a finger to support their right to speak in private. Anyhow the point is that we need a balance here. Waiting until after a terrorist action to figure out who's in on it, what's going down and how many lives are at stake, is an even worse solution than imposing on the freedoms of innocent people who have nothing to do with terrorism. That doesn't mean the last is a good solution either, but there are situations where no solutions are perfect or very good. This seems to be one and THAT is a point that the media fails miserably to communicate. In stead they wrap the problem up in a tidy little "Bush is spying on you! Boo!" package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 Dutch comedians said the following:

 

You let the goverment gather all the data they can about you, because you got nothing to hide, right? but what if in 4 years there's another goverment, one you dont like that much, lets say a muslim extrimist goverment, do you still feel so comfertable?

 

Now this example is a bit extreme. But all the data they gather can be stolen and be used by people who aren't interested in your security to say the least.

Welcome to the age of paranoia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of trampling on people's rights in order to get something done, is a very slippery slope. Similarly, you could also jail all the muslims in the US. That would be very effective as well. But would it be the right thing to do? The ends do not justify the means. Not to mention all the abuse of power this invites. The terrorists picture the US as being a morally bankrupt and corrupt bastion of evil. Do you really want to prove them right?

 

If you're so worried about fighting the terrorists, you should be in favour of judicial oversight. This makes sure the intelligence agencies are actually focussing on the terrorists themselves, rather than anyone else they dislike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, i dont get it. Sonic for a change, makes a good post and the i've still got to see you make a good response and your saying Sonic makes bad posts? :lol:

 

 

How is his post a "good one" for a change? Its the same thing he always shovels out. A few more links to some obscure sites, which can easily be retorted with the like if I wanted to waste an hour on the puter? I've already stated my opinions about Sonic Goo and his historical bent to piss on anything related to American or her policies. I have declared war on his posts which do this. I chased him from the ST forum, I chased him when he tried it in the SFI forum a month ago, and also chased him from here for a nice little hiatus we enjoyed. He's knows better not to do it in the FF5 forum, cuz I would have him banned to the stone-age.

 

How's that for a response?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knix' date='Jan 8 2006, 05:22 PM' post='24861']

How is his post a "good one" for a change? Its the same thing he always shovels out. A few more links to some obscure sites, which can easily be retorted with the like if I wanted to waste an hour on the puter? I've already stated my opinions about Sonic Goo and his historical bent to piss on anything related to American or her policies. I have declared war on his posts which do this. I chased him from the ST forum, I chased him when he tried it in the SFI forum a month ago, and also chased him from here for a nice little hiatus we enjoyed. He's knows better not to do it in the FF5 forum, cuz I would have him banned to the stone-age.

 

How's that for a response?

 

Well this time you atleast give a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See above, hence the reason for me not posting my political opinions here. That being said, I think each and every leader had some sort of fault - we are all human and any politician - to be elected in such as way as to have the majority of the vote (or NOT in some cases), must act like a politician in some manner. Soooooo, having been around a lot of them, they are all slimy pieces of crap - LOL!!!! j/k But you have to consider how each of these leaders got there - Hillary is well known cause of Bill, her books, etc., dang Arnold and Ronald were both movie stars, come on! Something to think about anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sonic Goo' date='Jan 8 2006, 12:37 PM' post='24866']

I think it's time I asked one of the mods to compare mr. Knix's posts to the rules of this forum and draw the inevitable conclusion. Enough already. :angry:

 

Enough already is absolutely correct. Now you're getting it. ;)

 

Even the last post has a link! Do you even go the bathroom by yourself? Jeez louise....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sonic Goo' date='Jan 8 2006, 02:38 PM' post='24791']

The idea of trampling on people's rights in order to get something done, is a very slippery slope. Similarly, you could also jail all the muslims in the US. That would be very effective as well. But would it be the right thing to do? The ends do not justify the means. Not to mention all the abuse of power this invites. The terrorists picture the US as being a morally bankrupt and corrupt bastion of evil. Do you really want to prove them right?

 

If you're so worried about fighting the terrorists, you should be in favour of judicial oversight. This makes sure the intelligence agencies are actually focussing on the terrorists themselves, rather than anyone else they dislike.

 

Right, I'm not saying you are all wrong, but I think you need to look further than the tip of your own nose (this isn't easy I know) and accept that for some (not for you or me but for many real life people), this is not a matter of theory, rules and abstract concepts but a matter of life and death for innocent civilians. That's a big difference. And you'll forgive me if care about both, but take the life and death part more seriously, in the end. Actually I think that is the reasonable end of the scale to start the debate at (the state (and the security agencies) have an obligation and right to do anything they can to keep its citizens and country safe from harm) and then work our way out from the totalitarian state which would be the absolute and restraintless version of the statement in parenthesis.

 

The fact is Goo that the world as a whole is a more dangerous place in 2006 than it has been for a long time. Global terrorism is now a threat lingering over much of the western world and the midd le east every day. It was not 50, 10 or even 5 years ago. As with any other problem, more of it requires a tougher effort to prevent or fix it. If one of those is letting security agencies tap phone calls or read e-mails with less effort I don't mind one bit. To ensure that they are not chasing small time crooks and bearded innocents with Palestine scarves (although personally I doubt they feel they have time to do that just for kicks), how about making a law which decides any evidence provided by these 'terrorism taps' can only be used in connection with terrorism charges? Seems a good solution to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines Privacy Policy.