"Domestic Spying" or protecting our azzes

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

The main reasoning in this piece is 'Bush should do it because the people want it'. Which makes it a shame that he doesn't link to any sources, because if you look at his ratings, they had a small rise in december, after (a speech on) the Iraqi elections and a fall since. I've sent him a mail asking for his source on that, so we should know soon.

[MajorPayne]

Sonic Goo' date='Jan 16 2006, 07:53 AM' post='26401']

The main reasoning in this piece is 'Bush should do it because the people want it'. Which makes it a shame that he doesn't link to any sources, because if you look at his ratings, they had a small rise in december, after (a speech on) the Iraqi elections and a fall since. I've sent him a mail asking for his source on that, so we should know soon.

 

I have to ask this after this has gone 4 plus pages. Nobody take offense either but unless you live in the USA how does this topic really affect you anyhow?

 

That is what this topic is about.

 

"Domestic Spying" or protecting our azzes

refering to the citizens of the United States

not Bush did this or didn't do that yada yada yada which seems to be prevailing in here by the people who aren't living in the USA. If you want to deviate from the topic then start on about the "Bush did this or didn't do that yada yada yada" but quit taking this one off the fracking topic sheesh!!!

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

As you probably know, no I don't live in the US, so it's likely that it doesn't affect me (though they also do it with international communication). Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to say anything about this? I thought people were free to express their opinion? I also don't have bird flu, rarely eat fastfood, am not religious, am not a paedophile, do not have any pets, don't drive a car, etc. etc. Does that mean I shouldn't say anything about those subjects? There's a number of subjects on European issues as well. You're welcome to post your opinion there, despite the fact that you're not living here either. You're even welcome to make a new topic about a European, or for that matter Asian, African, or other subject.

 

And I'm sorry, but I was adressing a post by RXS, or more precisely, a column by Tony Snow, who brought up Bush in this context. Which he is correct in doing. Bush is the president of the US, and this is his policy. And I've said nothing negative about him, just questioned the reasoning of this columnist and whatever he bases it on. Though I agree with the fact that, come to think of it, the problem with this column is not as much in its mention of Bush and his motives, but in the fact that it distracts from the real issue: tapping without a warrant.

[MajorPayne]

My point is the topic has gone off on tangents. If you want to comment on the topic by all means please do.

It has deviated into the smearing of Bush and those who defend or take offense to the smearing.

 

the topic is about wiretapping or the "spying" of the US government of it's citizens.

all other subject matter should be taken to a different thread is all.

 

My spin is this stuff goes on all over the world (governments spying on it's citizens) has nothing to do with who is running the particular country. As long as the capability to do so is there you know it's being done.

 

One thing I tell people in my workplace is treat company emails as "not secure" most employers review employee emails even (be it randomly) they do this to keep an eye on their employees conduct.

 

You know government employees are "spied" on especially if they have a sensitive jobs.

 

So please express opinions on the thread topic no matter where you are from.

 

 

 

[[FF5]Knix]

You don't drive a car goo?

[MajorPayne]

Here's another take on this subject

 

Gore Assails Domestic Wiretapping Program

Former Vice President Al Gore Assails Domestic Wiretapping Program, Calling It Illegal

By LARRY MARGASAK

The Associated Press

 

WASHINGTON - Former Vice President Al Gore called Monday for an independent investigation of President Bush's domestic spying program, contending the president "repeatedly and persistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without court approval.

 

Speaking on Martin Luther King Jr.'s national holiday, the man who lost the 2000 presidential election to Bush was interrupted repeatedly by applause as he called the anti-terrorism program "a threat to the very structure of our government."

 

Gore charged that the administration acted without congressional authority and made a "direct assault" on a special federal court that authorizes requests to eavesdrop on Americans. One judge on the court resigned last month, voicing concerns about the National Security Agency's surveillance of e-mails and phone calls.

 

A spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, Tracey Schmitt, attacked Gore's comments shortly after address.

 

"Al Gore's incessant need to insert himself in the headline of the day is almost as glaring as his lack of understanding of the threats facing America," Schmitt said. "While the president works to protect Americans from terrorists, Democrats deliver no solutions of their own, only diatribes laden with inaccuracies and anger. "

 

Gore's speech was sponsored by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and The Liberty Coalition, two organizations that have expressed concern about the policy.

 

The former vice president said that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should name a special counsel to investigate the program, citing the attorney general's "obvious conflict of interest" as a member of the Bush Cabinet as well as the nation's top law enforcement officer.

 

Gonzales has agreed to testify publicly at a Senate hearing on the program, and he told a news conference recently that the president acted "consistent with his legal authority" to protect Americans from a terrorist threat.

 

Gore, speaking at DAR Constitution Hall, said the concerns are especially important on the King holiday because the slain civil rights leader was among thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government.

 

King, as a foremost civil rights activist in the 1950s and 60s, had his telephone conversations wiretapped by the FBI, which kept a file on him and thousands of other civil rights and anti-Vietnam war activists.

 

Gore said there is still much to learn about the domestic surveillance program, but he already has drawn a conclusion about its legality.

 

"What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently," the Democrat maintained.

 

Bush has pointed to a congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that authorized him to use force in the fight against terrorism as allowing him to order the program.

 

Gore had a different view, contending that Bush failed to convince Congress to support a domestic spying program, so he "secretly assumed that power anyway, as if congressional authorization was a useless bother."

 

He said the spying program must be considered along with other administration actions as a constitutional power grab by the president. Gore cited imprisoning American citizens without charges in terrorism cases, mistreatment of prisoners including torture and seizure of individuals in foreign countries and delivering them to autocratic regimes "infamous for the cruelty of their techniques."

 

Gore didn't only criticize government officials. Referring to news reports that private telecommunications companies have provided the Bush administration with access to private information on Americans, Gore said any company that did so should immediately end its complicity in the program.

 

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

My point is the topic has gone off on tangents. If you want to comment on the topic by all means please do.

It has deviated into the smearing of Bush and those who defend or take offense to the smearing.

Then next time, address it to the people who actually do that the most, eh?

 

My spin is this stuff goes on all over the world (governments spying on it's citizens) has nothing to do with who is running the particular country. As long as the capability to do so is there you know it's being done.

But does that mean it should be encouraged, put in law, or accepted as evidence in trials? Just because something will be done anyway (like stealing, or murder), doesn't mean it should be legalised... that would set a bit of a bad precedent.

(no, I don't drive a car - I live a bikeride from work and the busses to Dublin go all night - has saved me thousands and thousands of euros)

[MajorPayne]

Sonic Goo' date='Jan 16 2006, 01:02 PM' post='26436']

Then next time, address it to the people who actually do that the most, eh?

 

But does that mean it should be encouraged, put in law, or accepted as evidence in trials? Just because something will be done anyway (like stealing, or murder), doesn't mean it should be legalised... that would set a bit of a bad precedent.

(no, I don't drive a car - I live a bikeride from work and the busses to Dublin go all night - has saved me thousands and thousands of euros)

 

In order: I didn't say Sonic Goo when I was addressing now did I?

 

Second I wasn't making a right or wrong statement. Though if my government were to catch someone through those methods who was planning to cause harm to people or property I'd say use it to throw the book at them cause they shouldn't have been planing it in the first place.

 

Third: well I didn't ask you about any cars

[RXS]

Sonic Goo' date='Jan 16 2006, 07:53 AM' post='26401']

The main reasoning in this piece is 'Bush should do it because the people want it'. Which makes it a shame that he doesn't link to any sources, because if you look at his ratings, they had a small rise in december, after (a speech on) the Iraqi elections and a fall since. I've sent him a mail asking for his source on that, so we should know soon.

How do you get that as the main reasoning? Are you trying to discredit the column because it does not follow your particular view? That would be like me saying the main reasoning in this piece is "Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43 each authorized the use of such surveillance (without bench warrants) in cases involving national security".

 

I think it goes a little deeper than that.

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

As I read the piece, the main point is that Bush should "call his critics' bluff" and go through with it simply because (according to this piece) the people support this measure. What else would he mean?

[RXS]

He mentions the approval rating once. From actual text, here are the reasons given:

 

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.

 

I think you could even draw another reasoning that the media was over zealous in trying to destroy Bush - especially when the administration asked the Times not to report the story on basis of National Security - they did it anyway thus showing no regard for National Security....therefore, their bluff is being called.

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

paragraph 4: "The president's poll ratings rose, as did public support for the supposedly controversial operation. " (basically saying the same thing twice)

third paragraph from bottom: "The public would support both proposals overwhelmingly"

last paragraph "A straightforward vote would shut up the rest" - he probably means a majority of the house, an indirect form of popular support

 

The list of reasons he gives and you quoted is his opinion and what he thinks the public thinks (causing them to agree with the measures).

 

To get back to topic, one of the reasons he gives is "Signals intelligence and data mining have almost unparalleled potential for exposing terror networks". Eh... no. This is a mistake the US has made many times throughout history. They rely heavily on their technological advantage and forget to do the important stuff. This is (one of) the reason(s) Bin Laden hasn't been caught. The US doesn't have on the ground intelligence. Al qaeda doesn't use email, they use couriers.

[[FF5]Knix]

For those of you scoring at home...

 

http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/terroristscorecard/

 

 

Not bad for under 5 years work.

 

Imagine if we had more intelligence on the ground like Goo-boy Sez!

 

They'd all be in (as the info in the link states) hell