"Domestic Spying" or protecting our azzes

[[FF5]Knix]

 

Name the country who had almost all of their casulties fighting OUTSIDE their own land.

[Surak]

Knix' date='Jan 9 2006, 06:13 PM' post='25145']

 

Name the country who had almost all of their casulties fighting OUTSIDE their own land.

 

UK and US, and to some degree Poland.

[RXS]

 

Don't try to beat me with history

 

Don't flatter yourself. I already have...you said it was the Canadians who fought in Holland. Before that, you said it was the Russians...I think we can all see how good your history really is.

 

 

do you always try to insult other people who dont agree with you?

 

Only after being insulted first

 

I used Hitler as an example as most people don't happen to like him. Now tell me, would it be okay to compare him to Stalin?

 

No. Would it be okay to compare you to Stalin? Would it be ok to compare you to Hitler?

[[FF5]Knix]

Not to diminish the lives lost in Pearl Harbor, but you don't feel that the German Bombing of London was a little more grave in the big picture?

 

And Germany's invasion/annexation of Poland, makes me not quite understand what you mean by "to some degree Poland".

 

 

[Surak]

Don't flatter yourself. I already have...you said it was the Canadians who fought in Holland. Before that, you said it was the Russians...I think we can all see how good your history really is.

I said Russia saved our arses, and thats true. I never said Russia fought in the Netherlands. The Canadians liberated the Netherlands. What are you trying to say?

 

 

 

Only after being insulted first

Well, where did I insult you personaly? Did I call you a "You ungrateful bucket of donkey sweat"? Are did I say America was a "two horse country"?

 

 

No. Would it be okay to compare you to Stalin? Would it be ok to compare you to Hitler?

 

No, I'm not a leader of a country, I don't allow the torturing of people, I'm not violating the privacy of people. So I'm in no way Hitler or Stalin.

 

Not to diminish the lives lost in Pearl Harbor, but you don't feel that the German Bombing of London was a little more grave in the big picture?/quote]

 

Doesnt it state Military deaths? Pearl harbor was a navy base, London a city.

 

And Germany's invasion/annexation of Poland, makes me not quite understand what you mean by "to some degree Poland".

 

There was a pretty big Polish army aiding the Allies.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contri...to_World_War_II[

[[FF5]Knix]

True, London is a city, but was there not fight in the air above London....with Military planes? Thats why I think the bombing of London should be included.

 

I know that Poland had military fighting in the war...my point was that many died defending their own land, on their own land. The US (and Canada, and some others probably under the "other" category), lost 99.9% of their military casulties fighting abroad, defending its allies.

 

P.S I have had the great pleasure to visit holland and all its beauty on 3 occasions..and do not once remember seeing a horse , many ducks however, some dogs, but no horses.

 

 

 

[RXS]

Insult my country or my current president and you insult me.

 

U.S. , British and Canadian troops (under Montgomerys command) liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation.

 

[Belladonna]

Knix, RXS and others, clearly we've been blind to the obvious truth that President Bush is the anti-christ (or Hitler reincarnated ) out to destroy the entire world and us conservative Americans are his evil brainwashed minions. There has been an ulterior motive every time we've tried to assist other countries... it's so we can get a foothold in their land before taking them over. That's right, Satan told us to do that, to be nice and offer a hand... before ripping their arms out. We aren't fighting terrorists, they are God's chosen people, WE are the terrorists. Okay, so we're not very good at it because we haven't bombed thousands of innocent civilians like the 'avenging angels' have, but I'm sure we'll catch on eventually. This wiretapping, THIS is the ultimate evil way of succeeding in our attempt at world domination! Finally, we'll be able to spy on our own people and find ways to defeat our foe! Muahahahaha! Huh? What? You've got the secret recipe for Aunt Millie's fruitcake? Excellent! There is no stopping us now!!

 

Yeah, that's my lame attempt to get us back on topic. This is about wiretapping, people. We've done this same arguing about WW2, the UN, etc. so many times that it's getting nauseating. Create a separate topic for each of those if you want to keep it going, but lets stick to one topic at a time, okay?

 

So wiretapping. My way of seeing it. Say we have this bad terrorist guy called 'Al' (no, not you, Howitzer). He's one of the top 'bad guys' and was involved in a bunch of attacks on innocent civilians worldwide. The US military captures him, his computer, his cellphone, his thimble collection and those of his also captured assistants in Iraq. The press doesn't know about this yet, but they soon will, and when they do they'll tell the whole world about Al's arrest. The President has a couple choices before that happens... he can get the numbers of all the people on Al's cellphone and tap their lines immediately or he can ask for a warrant to do so... but that will take a day or two. Say he waited for the warrant to be approved (which could easily be held up by some judge with a political agenda), in the meantime, the story breaks and all the cellnumbers are changed and once again the US is out of the loop and unaware what is being planned by the terrorists. But he didn't wait, the wiretaps were put on those other lines. The story breaks and since the terrorists are not total morons the numbers are changed, except this time intelligence is already involved so they are able to learn the new numbers and can continue moderating the terrorists on the new numbers without them knowing it. Through this spying on the terrorists, it's discovered that some of them are making calls to the United States. Since there are terrorist cells in the US, it's pretty reasonable to assume that it is a good thing to find out where they are and to then wiretap their phones too, to find out if they are planning to strike on US soil. Chances are a 'couple' of the people involved with Al and his bunch of bad guys will be American citizens. The thing is (in my opinion), if you're involved in phone conversations with people like Al while we're at war, then you deserve to have more than just your privacy taken away from you.

 

The President is not authorizing wiretapping of random civilians. He is doing what he can to protect our country from threats abroad as well as here by knowing what the heck is going on. I understand the fear of giving someone too much power, but in this case I feel the wiretapping is completely justified and I support it. I believe the President when he says attacks have been prevented by having knowledge gained though wiretapping. I'm more incensed by the newspaper's leak of the operation, which has no doubt ruined years of work and added to the threat against our country.

[Eliteone]

Knix, RXS and others, clearly we've been blind to the obvious truth that President Bush is the anti-christ (or Hitler reincarnated ) out to destroy the entire world and us conservative Americans are his evil brainwashed minions. There has been an ulterior motive every time we've tried to assist other countries... it's so we can get a foothold in their land before taking them over. That's right, Satan told us to do that, to be nice and offer a hand... before ripping their arms out. We aren't fighting terrorists, they are God's chosen people, WE are the terrorists. Okay, so we're not very good at it because we haven't bombed thousands of innocent civilians like the 'avenging angels' have, but I'm sure we'll catch on eventually. This wiretapping, THIS is the ultimate evil way of succeeding in our attempt at world domination! Finally, we'll be able to spy on our own people and find ways to defeat our foe! Muahahahaha! Huh? What? You've got the secret recipe for Aunt Millie's fruitcake? Excellent! There is no stopping us now!!

 

Yeah, that's my lame attempt to get us back on topic. This is about wiretapping, people. We've done this same arguing about WW2, the UN, etc. so many times that it's getting nauseating. Create a separate topic for each of those if you want to keep it going, but lets stick to one topic at a time, okay?

 

So wiretapping. My way of seeing it. Say we have this bad terrorist guy called 'Al' (no, not you, Howitzer). He's one of the top 'bad guys' and was involved in a bunch of attacks on innocent civilians worldwide. The US military captures him, his computer, his cellphone, his thimble collection and those of his also captured assistants in Iraq. The press doesn't know about this yet, but they soon will, and when they do they'll tell the whole world about Al's arrest. The President has a couple choices before that happens... he can get the numbers of all the people on Al's cellphone and tap their lines immediately or he can ask for a warrant to do so... but that will take a day or two. Say he waited for the warrant to be approved (which could easily be held up by some judge with a political agenda), in the meantime, the story breaks and all the cellnumbers are changed and once again the US is out of the loop and unaware what is being planned by the terrorists. But he didn't wait, the wiretaps were put on those other lines. The story breaks and since the terrorists are not total morons the numbers are changed, except this time intelligence is already involved so they are able to learn the new numbers and can continue moderating the terrorists on the new numbers without them knowing it. Through this spying on the terrorists, it's discovered that some of them are making calls to the United States. Since there are terrorist cells in the US, it's pretty reasonable to assume that it is a good thing to find out where they are and to then wiretap their phones too, to find out if they are planning to strike on US soil. Chances are a 'couple' of the people involved with Al and his bunch of bad guys will be American citizens. The thing is (in my opinion), if you're involved in phone conversations with people like Al while we're at war, then you deserve to have more than just your privacy taken away from you.

 

The President is not authorizing wiretapping of random civilians. He is doing what he can to protect our country from threats abroad as well as here by knowing what the heck is going on. I understand the fear of giving someone too much power, but in this case I feel the wiretapping is completely justified and I support it. I believe the President when he says attacks have been prevented by having knowledge gained though wiretapping. I'm more incensed by the newspaper's leak of the operation, which has no doubt ruined years of work and added to the threat against our country.

 

 

 

 

YAY !!!! A post on Topic WOOT WOOT !!!!

[Surak]

Knix' date='Jan 9 2006, 06:55 PM' post='25161']

True, London is a city, but was there not fight in the air above London....with Military planes? Thats why I think the bombing of London should be included.

 

I know that Poland had military fighting in the war...my point was that many died defending their own land, on their own land. The US (and Canada, and some others probably under the "other" category), lost 99.9% of their military casulties fighting abroad, defending its allies.

 

P.S I have had the great pleasure to visit holland and all its beauty on 3 occasions..and do not once remember seeing a horse , many ducks however, some dogs, but no horses.

 

Don't forget the UK was longer in the war and fought on most fronts longer then the Americans. The battle of Britain was mainly above England itself so most British pilots jumped out of the their plane and could be back in the air the same day.

 

Insult my country or my current president and you insult me.

 

Your current president? Oh so not any other? And by looking at this thread you seem to find the facts very insulting.

 

U.S. , British and Canadian troops (under Montgomerys command) liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation.

 

Uhm, no you forgot the Polish and many more countries.

 

The thing is (in my opinion), if you're involved in phone conversations with people like Al while we're at war, then you deserve to have more than just your privacy taken away from you.

 

There goes freedom of speech.

[[FF5]Knix]

nobody has complete Freedom of speech.

 

It is illegal to yell "FIRE" in a crowded public place (i.e. movie theater)

 

I cannot call up the White House, and threaten the President, without expecting a visit from the guys wearing sunglasses, and ear pieces 5 minutes later.

 

The idea of freedom speech, is that you can say what you want within social boundries. The idea does not live in a vacume.

 

I CAN hold a sign in front of the White House...saying GWB is a ()*()*!

I CAN write an op/ed piece in the New York Times questioning the existence of God.

 

You CAN'T do this in many countries around the world.

 

In Germany it is Illegal to show any NAZI emblems or even to give the "Heil HItler" salute.

 

In the US, due to freedom of speech, as long as you get the proper documentation (and they do give it them) you can have a Neo-Nazi march.

 

 

[Surak]

Knix' date='Jan 9 2006, 09:24 PM' post='25189']

In Germany it is Illegal to show any NAZI emblems or even to give the "Heil HItler" salute.

 

Its allowed in Historical purposes.

 

You're right nobody has complete freedom of speech, but calling the president and threating him in person is something else then calling your friend and say you'd like to kill the president.

 

 

[RXS]

I'm arguing with an idiot who is bringing me down to his level and beating me with experience.

 

Yes, Surak, my current President. We re-elect every four years and I may not stand behind my future president...comprende? The rest of your post doesn't justify a response - rubish.

 

Back on topic for me. I am wary of losing any civil liberties because once they have been taken, they are rarely given back. I am in favor of the wire taps for some of the same reasons Bella mentioned above, but with a caviat- maybe a time limit, maybe a renew clause, whatever. It's easy to agree that, given the existing circumstances, there are a lot of benefits to wire tapping. What concerns me is how these laws are abused over time and end up encompassing much more than terror activity. It also concerns me that once this civil liberty is taken (even if only temporarily) it paves the way for additional liberties to be taken.

 

One of the beauties of the US government is the checks and balance system between the three government bodies. The checks and balances are in place to preserve our democracy and the people of the democracy. If the judicial branch is "removed" from the process, the balance is disrupted and subject to abuse. This is not a matter any US citizen should take lightly.

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

Bella: in the example you give there is clear suspicion, so it's easy to get a judge's approval (if it's urgent, even afterwards) and so this does not fall under the new proposal (and, what if I remember correctly, they have already been doing). What removing judicial oversight really does, is give the agencies the freedom to tap anyone they don't agree with. It removes the safeguards that were put in place after earlier abuses of this kind of power like COINTELPRO for example.

[DeathValleyGirl]

This crap is giving me a bloody foreign headache...

 

I might not always agree with everything the US has ever done, but I sure am glad I live here. Thanks Mom and Dad and Gramma and Grandpa, etc.

[Surak]

I'm arguing with an idiot who is bringing me down to his level and beating me with experience.

 

Not down, up to his level.

 

The rest of your post doesn't justify a response - rubish.

 

Yeah sure, maybe your 3 braincells gave up on you?

 

One of the beauties of the US government is the checks and balance system between the three government bodies. The checks and balances are in place to preserve our democracy and the people of the democracy. If the judicial branch is "removed" from the process, the balance is disrupted and subject to abuse. This is not a matter any US citizen should take lightly.

 

Bush already did this.

[Eliteone]

 

Let's get off the president bashing and back on topic shall we?

 

 

[{GD}Independent]

 

 

So wiretapping. My way of seeing it. Say we have this bad terrorist guy called 'Al' (no, not you, Howitzer). He's one of the top 'bad guys' and was involved in a bunch of attacks on innocent civilians worldwide. The US military captures him, his computer, his cellphone, his thimble collection and those of his also captured assistants in Iraq. The press doesn't know about this yet, but they soon will, and when they do they'll tell the whole world about Al's arrest. The President has a couple choices before that happens... he can get the numbers of all the people on Al's cellphone and tap their lines immediately or he can ask for a warrant to do so... but that will take a day or two. Say he waited for the warrant to be approved (which could easily be held up by some judge with a political agenda), in the meantime, the story breaks and all the cellnumbers are changed and once again the US is out of the loop and unaware what is being planned by the terrorists. But he didn't wait, the wiretaps were put on those other lines. The story breaks and since the terrorists are not total morons the numbers are changed, except this time intelligence is already involved so they are able to learn the new numbers and can continue moderating the terrorists on the new numbers without them knowing it. Through this spying on the terrorists, it's discovered that some of them are making calls to the United States. Since there are terrorist cells in the US, it's pretty reasonable to assume that it is a good thing to find out where they are and to then wiretap their phones too, to find out if they are planning to strike on US soil. Chances are a 'couple' of the people involved with Al and his bunch of bad guys will be American citizens. The thing is (in my opinion), if you're involved in phone conversations with people like Al while we're at war, then you deserve to have more than just your privacy taken away from you.

 

The President is not authorizing wiretapping of random civilians. He is doing what he can to protect our country from threats abroad as well as here by knowing what the heck is going on. I understand the fear of giving someone too much power, but in this case I feel the wiretapping is completely justified and I support it. I believe the President when he says attacks have been prevented by having knowledge gained though wiretapping. I'm more incensed by the newspaper's leak of the operation, which has no doubt ruined years of work and added to the threat against our country.

 

I think I'm in love!!!!

 

One thing, though. The correct spelling is "Ali".

 

[{GD}Independent]

 

 

Back on topic for me. I am wary of losing any civil liberties because once they have been taken, they are rarely given back.

 

 

I agree to a point. A lot of the little freedoms that congress insidiously removes from day to day -- yeah, they're going for good. But with these more major ones, let me give you a couple of examples of restrictions on civil liberties that served their purpose then were restored. FDR's order that private military corresponcence be read by authorities and the censorship of the media that he also employed. (Would LOVE to see that one come back, sometimes!)

[Belladonna]

One thing, though. The correct spelling is "Ali".

*tickles Independent* I was being somewhat hypothetical. I should have known you'd see through that, though.

[Surak]

 

Let's get off the president bashing and back on topic shall we?

 

BASHING? Its not bashing its a fact.

[RXS]

BASHING? Its not bashing its a fact.

He just doesn't get it E1....don't waste your breath.

[Surak]

"Since politics is inherently partisan, the term bashing is frequently used to cast negative aspersions on critics for political gain."

 

I do get it.

[Eliteone]

"Since politics is inherently partisan, the term bashing is frequently used to cast negative aspersions on critics for political gain."

 

I do get it.

 

 

I meant stop the bashing and stick to the topic here basically

 

Do I have to break out the crayons?

[RXS]

Time for the President to Call Their Bluff

Tony Snow

 

The White House Social Office needs to note right now, before anybody has a chance to forget, that it really must send flowers, chocolates and wall-sized Christmas cards (um, holiday cards) next year to James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times.

 

The intrepid duo saved the Bush presidency recently by breaking news that the National Security Agency has been conducting surveillance of Al Qaeda operatives abroad and their minions in the United States. The reporters noted that the agency monitored phone calls, e-mails and other electronic communications by means of sophisticated eavesdropping devices and even more sophisticated computers that can pick out known terrorists' vocal patterns while monitoring words and phrases that may refer to terrorist acts and targets.

 

This is hardly new. "Signals intelligence" has been the rage among intelligence communities for some time. CBS reported in 2000 on the Echelon program, a joint effort involving the United States and its four chief English-speaking allies to monitor every electronic communication on Earth. Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43 each authorized the use of such surveillance (without bench warrants) in cases involving national security.

 

The Times pushed the story furiously, and its editorial page inveighed gravely against the president. A handful of Democrats cited the reportage in demanding the president's ouster, while purveyors of Beltway Conventional Wisdom declared "impeachment" the word of 2006.

 

Yet as opponents grimaced and gathered, curious and unexpected things happened. The president's poll ratings rose, as did public support for the supposedly controversial operation.

 

This confluence of events works not only to the president's advantage, it fits his political style. When pushed, George W. Bush doesn't like to play smash-mouth. He prefers the poker stratagem of calling people's bluffs.

 

He did it in proposing his tax cuts. He did it in seeking authorization for the war. And now, he can perform his biggest bluff-call yet.

 

To understand why, consider a few observations:

 

— A president ought to do whatever is necessary and proper to defend American citizens from terrorists.

 

— A president has constitutional authority to approve warrantless searches of known and credible terror suspects, especially when he puts in place procedures that allow all three branches of government to oversee the operation.

 

— Intelligence failures permitted Al Qaeda to pull off not only the Sept. 11 attacks, but also a series of assaults before and after, including the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; the attack on the USS Cole; the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia; slaughters in the Madrid and London subways; and hotel massacres in Jordan and Bali.

 

— Signals intelligence and data mining have almost unparalleled potential for exposing terror networks and complicating the work of would-be mass murderers.

 

Given these statements of the obvious, the president ought to open his State of the Union Address by asking Congress to give him official authority to approve warrantless searches of known and identified terrorists, or of people in regular contact with those terrorists whom authorities reasonably suspect of plotting to commit acts of murder, terror or sabotage. These activities ought to be subject to monthly review by the attorney general. The administration also ought to be required each month to brief the top four congressional leaders, both intelligence committees and the head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

 

The proposal would codify the status quo — but shorten the reporting periods to 30 days from 45 — and place the impeachment crowd in a sticky situation. The public would support both proposals overwhelmingly, leaving the president's most hysterical critics isolated utterly.

 

Note who has not spoken against the NSA program since the Times story broke. The list includes Harry Reid and Dick Durbin in the Senate; Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer in the House; and members of both intelligence committees. In other words, Democrats in the know either have supported the surveillance program or just kept their mouths shut.

 

A straightforward vote would shut up the rest, highlighting vividly the gulf that separates a president responsible for national security from critics responsible to nobody. Civil libertarians are right to fret about abuses of government power, which is why successive administrations have brought Congress, the courts and the Justice Department into the review process. But the Great Bluff-Caller is right about an even more fundamental point: If we try to fight the war on terror with eyes shut and ears packed with wax, innocent people will die.