Depends on the Definition of Limited
by matt at 6:00 am on January 11th, 2006 in Depends on the Definition of, War on TerrorPresident George W. Bush (1/1/06):
In the meantime, this program is conscious of people’s civil liberties, as am I. This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America. And I repeat, limited.
Former NSA employee Russell Tice (1/10/06):
Tice says the technology exists to track and sort through every domestic and international phone call as they are switched through centers, such as one in New York, and to search for key words or phrases that a terrorist might use.
“If you picked the word ‘jihad’ out of a conversation,” Tice said, “the technology exists that you focus in on that conversation, and you pull it out of the system for processing.”
[…]
He says the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions if the full range of secret NSA programs is used.“That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum,” Tice said.
The President of the United States is a liar. Those who attempt to defend his illegal actions once again find themselves in no-man’s land.
Mark M wrote:
In other words, they’re using the wide net theory fisherman used to use to catch tuna.
Ask dolphins how well that works …
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 6:32 am ¶
Mark M wrote:
I know—not the best analogy, but I’m still on my first cup of coffee …
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 6:33 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I commented about this “fair and balanced” story from ABCNews here
This program that Tice is talking about is called Echelon and existed long before W got in office. This whole story is biased to make it look like W was in charge of starting this program. This post is misleading in following that same line of bull….
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 7:11 am ¶
matt wrote:
yes echelon existed previously. what does that prove?
it was bush’s order that began using it in it’s current form, (he has admitted that by the way) and his lie about its scope.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 7:17 am ¶
JimC wrote:
http://echelononline.free.fr/documents/dc/inside_echelon.htm
Wrong, this story is completely misleading. The Tice story is about Echelon not about W’s authorization of NSA wiretapping. No doubt the NSA uses hits from Echelon to get leads to do the wiretapping but this system that Tice reportedly is testifying about has nothing to do with W. So the scope is not bigger than previosuly stated by our President, the story is jsut being distorted to make it look so and you know it.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 7:35 am ¶
matt wrote:
do you have some kind of developmental disorder?
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 7:49 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>http://echelononline.free.fr/documents/dc/inside_echelon.htm
Jim, that’s a link from France!! You better beg Pat Robertson for forgiveness now, lest he have a Bible quote for you…
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 7:54 am ¶
Mark M wrote:
JIM HATES FREEDOM!!
I think he should be sent to Uzbekistan and boiled … you know, like the U.S. government is doing to others who hate freedom.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 8:06 am ¶
JimC wrote:
And it is a misleading comment to say that this is a post 911 program, yes it was being used post 911 but what they failed to mention it was being used the exact same way pre George W. Bush…
Did you watch the segment on ABCNews last night? I did. Everyhting he described was nothing new. The things he is to testify about has been happening for years before W came to be President.
I know you want to nail W so bad that accepting a completely distorted news story seems like a good idea but come on…this is major media bias at its worst.
And the France comments, where better to find pansies who fear their government more than the people who would actually kill them…
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 8:14 am ¶
matt wrote:
>they failed to mention it was being used the exact same way pre George W. Bush…
jim, i sympathize with your position of feeling the need to defend daddy protector when he keeps making it harder, but that doesn’t change the facts. the president has admitted to using the program differently, hence the kickback from the fisa court and the subsequent end run around them. you can scream “clinton” until your head pops off, but you’re still flat wrong.
>And the France comments, where better to find pansies who fear their government more than the people who would actually kill them…
Republicans: where better to find people so terrified that they would tear up parts of the constitution so they can stop wetting their beds.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 8:19 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
>I think he should be sent to Uzbekistan and boiled
With some celery, parsnips, onions and the right seasonings I bet he would taste delicious. Mmmm jimc stew…aaarghhh…
>where better to find pansies who fear their government more than the people who would actually kill them…
Does that mean you shouldn’t fear our government or that you should but you are such a not-a-pansy you don’t? It’s quite confusing…
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 8:28 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>jim, i sympathize with your position of feeling the need to defend daddy protector when he keeps making it harder, but that doesn’t change the facts. the president has admitted to using the program differently, hence the kickback from the fisa court and the subsequent end run around them. you can scream “clinton” until your head pops off, but you’re still flat wrong.
You’re are completely denying what this story is really saying. That’s fine. This will get hashed out better in the public arena and in the end, I will be found correct. Tice will testify about a program that has been used for many years before Bush and then Dems will try to link it to Bush’s NSA wiretapping and it will get completely shredded and exposed for the witchhunt it is….
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 8:29 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I find it amusing when faced with an obvious hack story that you all can’t admit it.
“Well so what if this Tice fellow is really describing Echelon, W is bad bad bad and must be punished for his willful act of trying to protect the USA, what a moron to think we need protecting, I mean 911 was like, 5 years ago dude, the bad guys hate W not the average american,so, its all good…I’m sure UBL is probably not all that bad of guy when you get to know him.”
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 8:33 am ¶
Mark M wrote:
I’m sure he’s a horrible human being.
Too bad Bush is doing absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to actually find him.
Question: If Bush said that taking everything you own for national security reasons is important, would you let him?
Seriously … since subverting the Constitution, ignoring checks and balances, and torturing people seems to be just dandy with you, where do you draw the line?
How much power do you just hand over to the President in exchange for a false sense of security?
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 8:43 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
I’d ask if JimC has ever addressed the Amanpour issue, but I don’t care. Instead, I’ll just paste a relevant unaddressed comment from another thread.
completely ignoring the substance of the post because the actions mentioned are indefensible…not the first time…
This is the most glaring of the many reasons why no one here should pay Jim the respect of responding to his comments.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 9:01 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Amanpour…I love her monotone, masculine voice…and the fact that she is one of the few journalists out there in the MSM ether who is worthy of her title.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 10:01 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I have yet read anything from anyone here that proves that anyone here isn’t completely partisan. Otherwise, you would admit that this story is manufactured completely to imply its relevance to the NSA wiretapping issue.
>Amanpour issue
What are you talking about?
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 10:11 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>I have yet read anything from anyone here that proves that anyone here isn’t completely partisan. Otherwise, you would admit that this story is manufactured completely to imply its relevance to the NSA wiretapping issue.
Right back atcha, babe.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 10:14 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>Right back atcha, babe.
Bingo!
Finally…some honesty…
So you can see how these this story is just media hype, manufactured to get a response?
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 10:23 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>So you can see how these this story is just media hype, manufactured to get a response?
Nope. Sorry to get your hopes up, I should have only pasted the first sentence of your drivel in there.
Ya know, the one about all of us being partisan? Yeah, you can’t exclude yourself from that assessment.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 10:26 am ¶
tom wrote:
Jim, how can i be partisan when im not a democrat? i dont vote democrat. i dont like the democrats for the most part. so here’s a completely unpartisan diss: george bush is a lying punk. the end.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 10:29 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Again, why does anyone give this guy the time of day, let alone a reasonable response?
Can we all agree to stop taking his bait and running around in his circles of uninformed, unenlightened, blindly-partisan bullshit?
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 10:36 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Yes can we?
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 10:39 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I know you don’t want to admit it but this story is complete bunk. It has nothing to do with W…and this will be revealed under scrutiny…
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 10:40 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Can you guys believe Angelina is pregnant with Brad’s baby? Is that like the biggest slap in the face to Jen or what?
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 10:44 am ¶
Mark M wrote:
I still have yet to figure out why Brad would dump Jen in favor of Angelina. I mean, AJ was defiled by Billy Bob Thorton.
I wouldn’t screw her with JimC’s mother’s dick …
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:05 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>I wouldn’t screw her with JimC’s mother’s dick …
I would, but only if she hadn’t shaved.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:06 am ¶
Mark M wrote:
Please tell me you’re talking about her back …
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:08 am ¶
Matthew Tobey Pretending to be JimC wrote:
Oh my stars, typical liberals taking things into the gutter. Bible, bible, ID, 9/11, Bush, Bush…
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:16 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>Please tell me you’re talking about her back …
Of course, I don’t deal with the front office…ever.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:17 am ¶
matt wrote:
i think that’s enough
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:19 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Kids, please, for one my mother died of cancer 10 years ago, I hope that makes you feel bad but probably won’t, second this is the kind of maturity I expect from this bunch….
Matt, I really hope you don’t condone such things…
Well, I guess you guys can’t really refute that this story is garbage and nothing more so why else would you resort to such childish attacks. Maybe a stint in the Army would teach you some manners and respect, but then again I wonder how many of you would make it past the first day…
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:23 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
I disagree, matt. Talking about Brangelina in this wiretapping discussion makes just as much sense as debating the wiretapping without knowing anything about Amanpour/Rubin.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:24 am ¶
Mark M wrote:
Ahh … pulling the “I served” card. What do you want? Pie?
Guess it wouldn’t matter much to you that I was kept from seving as a Naval aviator because of a degenerative retina condition — otherwise, I was in. Still wanna hitch a ride some time, possibility for blindness be damned.
And unless you know whether or not anyone else served, please keep your “I served … RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!” crap to yourself.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:31 am ¶
matt wrote:
>Matt, I really hope you don’t condone such things…
hence my private and public notices
>Well, I guess you guys can’t really refute that this story is garbage
we’ve done that. the president has admitted that he has used the nsa in different ways than any president before him. remember when he said he ordered them to do it to protect you?
>Maybe a stint in the Army would teach you some manners and respect, but then again I wonder how many of you would make it past the first day…
that’s also enough of that. this isn’t starship troopers. your service doesn’t grant you superiority or any kind of moral high ground.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:36 am ¶
Mark M wrote:
Yeah, we probably took it a bit far. But I’m known for that kind of thing.
It’s both a blessing and a curse …
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:39 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
My apologies. Matt’s right. I realize that comments such as my most recent comment lower the discourse further than even the most brainwashed hack can.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:46 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>we’ve done that. the president has admitted that he has used the nsa in different ways than any president before him. remember when he said he ordered them to do it to protect you?
I don’t question that (plus I don’t think what he did has yet to be deemed illegal by any court either), however, the Tice story speaks more of the Echeclon program than it does any suppsoed abuse of power by Bush. The fact that Echelon was in use before Bush took office negates that argument. If the NSA uses data from Echelon to initiate wiretappings, that’s the only connection but that’s not what this story is attempting to paint. This story is attempting to paint that Bush authorized Echelon (without calling it that) for the purpose of these wiretaps which is clearly not the case.
The story is intentionally misleading.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:48 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>that’s also enough of that. this isn’t starship troopers. your service doesn’t grant you superiority or any kind of moral high ground.
It does give me a different perspective, at the very least…
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:50 am ¶
matt wrote:
>It does give me a different perspective, at the very least…
i don’t think anyone questions that you have a different perspective
>the Tice story speaks more of the Echeclon program than it does any suppsoed abuse of power by Bush.
i’m quite certain that when he testifies before congress, you will be eating those words on a bun.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:55 am ¶
Mark M wrote:
BTW, Jim, you never did answer my questions:
If Bush said that taking everything you own for national security reasons is important, would you let him?
Since subverting the Constitution, ignoring checks and balances, and torturing people seems to be just dandy with you, where do you draw the line?
How much power do you just hand over to the President in exchange for a false sense of security?
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 11:59 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>If Bush said that taking everything you own for national security reasons is important, would you let him?
No, but that’s like say if you let the government tax you, would you let them take all your money…
I guess I tend to see it as the President is trying to secure our nation and is limiting to such activities. On the otherhand, you see this as a potential gateway to more sinister yet unproven abuses.
In this country you’re innocent until proven guilty.
>Since subverting the Constitution, ignoring checks and balances, and torturing people seems to be just dandy with you, where do you draw the line?
So say you, I don’t agree that any of those have happened under the authorization of W. The torture thing, yes that’s not right yet what happened at Abu Graib has not been proven to have fallen under any direct order or authorization from Bush and until recently, there were no congrssional guidelines to what constituted torture. Now there is, and if such activities take place with knowledge of the President, then fine. Yet, if smacking a terrorist around or threatening him so that he thinks he will be harmed gets us some intel that will keep just one soldier alive, then yes do it…
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 12:37 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>i’m quite certain that when he testifies before congress, you will be eating those words on a bun.
We’ll see, but from what he talked about last night on ABCNews was any indication, he will be revealing Echelon and how it is used more than what the President authorized.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 12:39 pm ¶
screwtape wrote:
>On the otherhand, you see this as a potential gateway to more sinister yet unproven abuses. In this country you’re innocent until proven guilty
while that is true, history and even current events are full of instances where people abuse power particularly in the name of national security.
do you really want a president to cross the line with something like secret surveilance on citizens and then have to prove him guilty? or would you rather the checks and balances worked in the first place?
your views seem contradictory to me. traditionally conservatives are suspicious of government, thus the “smaller govmt” mantra. but since clinton left office everything is turned on its head. you guys want the geovernment involved in as many things liberals do. you just want it to advocate your ideology.
>he will be revealing Echelon and how it is used more than what the President authorized.
i am sure the prez will try to frame it that way. the buck always stops somewhere else.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 1:06 pm ¶
Mark M wrote:
So you’re now trying to justify torture by stating that Congress didn’t expressly forbid it before, so it was okay?
Wow … just … um … yeah … man … I just … uh … don’t even know what to post about that.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 1:13 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>do you really want a president to cross the line with something like secret surveilance on citizens and then have to prove him guilty? or would you rather the checks and balances worked in the first place?
This has yet to be settled. Did he cross the line or did he have the power to do this under the provisions congress gave him after 911. It has been interpreted both ways. So it will be up to a judge to determine if congress gave him this power or if it is in fact unconstituional. Either way it will not result in an criminal charges or even a mark on the President. It will either result in a new bill that authorizes these limited scoped taps or it will result in the continuation as is or it will result in them stopped completely but with no ramifications to anyone involved….
Really no one I’ve heard really is opposed to what he says he is trying to do. They oppose the fact that they perceive a circumvention of the law and potential violation of civil rights. Any criminal wrong doing or even an impeachment would have to prove that their were abuses and an intentional violation of rights. The latter however has already been shown that Bush tried to make sure civil rights were not violated by having the Justice department oversee the NSA actions to deem them legal or not.
Look, I know that this seems contradictory to conservative views but I remember 911 vividly and do not want that to ever happen again. There may be missteps along the way to find the right solution but I will not damn anyone for trying to keep the Jihadist from taking down our building and killing our people.
For my part, if I’m on a plane and a Arab looking gentleman in on there and he looks suspicious, be certain that I will tackle him the first time I percieve him to do anything out of the ordinary, I will apologize later if I’m wrong. We live in a very different world and those who don’t recognize that are doomed to pay for it with their lives.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 1:57 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>>do you really want a president to cross the line with something like secret surveilance on citizens and then have to prove him guilty? or would you rather the checks and balances worked in the first place?
>This has yet to be settled.
Who is saying anything about it being settled? It was a strikingly simple question. Answer it. Better yet, pretend someone else was President and promised that it was all in our best interest. Americans are not supposed to blindly trust their leaders.
>The latter however has already been shown that Bush tried to make sure civil rights were not violated by having the Justice department oversee the NSA actions to deem them legal or not.
first you say it hasn’t been settled, now you say it has already been shown. so the burden of proof doesn’t cut both ways?
> I remember 911 vividly and do not want that to ever happen again.
as opposed to all the liberals who don’t remember/want it to happen again?
>There may be missteps along the way to find the right solution but I will not damn anyone for trying to keep the Jihadist from taking down our building and killing our people.
missteps? like what? violating the constitution? lying? misleading? torturing? not going after bin laden at tora bora? what?
>For my part, if I’m on a plane and a Arab looking gentleman in on there and he looks suspicious, be certain that I will tackle him the first time I percieve him to do anything out of the ordinary, I will apologize later if I’m wrong. We live in a very different world and those who don’t recognize that are doomed to pay for it with their lives.
i look forward to this happening. i encourage you to make a fool out of yourself because the big bad terrorists scare you. we live in the exact same world as we did on 9/10, any assertion to the contrary only serves to gut our way of life.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 2:10 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Yes, but any terrorists who were found through unconstitutional wiretaps will easily duck criminal charges on a technicality, because they were subjected to illegal surveillance.
Known terrorists will roam the streets freely, plotting the next 9/11, but as long as there isn’t a mark on the president, I guess JimC can sleep at night. Of course, maybe he’s organizing a vast militia of towel-head-tacklers that I’m not aware of.
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 4:03 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>maybe he’s organizing a vast militia of towel-head-tacklers that I’m not aware of.
Maybe I am, want to join? We have a cool handshake and patches!
Posted 11 Jan 2006 at 9:44 pm ¶
screwtape wrote:
Answer my question. It was not specific to this president and his current situation. It was a generality. You ignored a similar question I asked, perhaps on another topic. Would you feel the same way about this if Kerry or Gore had won? I wouldn’t.
Do you not remember all the talk shortly after 9/11 about how if we lose our freedoms and rights the terrorists win? Do you not remember bush saying that that is what the ‘turrists’ really wanted? Well, if that’s the case, they are winning.
>Really no one I’ve heard really is opposed to what he says he is trying to do. They oppose the fact that they perceive a circumvention of the law and potential violation of civil rights.
So what does that tell you? Everyone wants to be safe. Everyone wants to make sure we get the bad guys. But some of us don’t want to live in a police state. There was no need for him to avoid FISA especially since he can get retroactive warrants up to 3 days later. FISA always was a rubber stamp court. It begs some serious questions.
>if I’m on a plane and a Arab looking gentleman in on there and he looks suspicious, be certain that I will tackle him the first time I percieve him to do anything out of the ordinary,
I would love to be there to see that.
>Bush tried to make sure civil rights were not violated by having the Justice department oversee the NSA actions to deem them legal or not.
I seem to remember reading he couldn’t get AG Ashcroft to sign off on it because Ashcroft, his homie, thought it was illegal. I have not links. Anyone else know anything about that?
>I remember 911 vividly
My wife works in Manhattan. On September 11, 2001 I spent all morning fruitlessly trying to get in touch with her on the phone. I did not know if she was alive or dead. When she finally got through to me she said she saw the planes hit from her office. The first tower fell while she was on the phone with me. She didn’t get home until 9 pm and she was traumatized for a long time after that.
Unless you happened to be in New York at the time, I don’t want to hear your noise about your vivid recollections. As if you have some special understanding that a mere liberal like myself could not have. You have not written anything here that I find more offensive than this.
You can see why I would want a secure country as much as anyone. But I am not willing to give up my rights for it or trade a liberal democracy for a neoconservative dictatorship. I identify more with Patrick Henry than with Karl Rove. If we cannot prevail without becoming a police state, then we cannot prevail at all.
Posted 12 Jan 2006 at 5:57 am ¶
matt wrote:
>I seem to remember reading he couldn’t get AG Ashcroft to sign off on it because Ashcroft, his homie, thought it was illegal. I have not links. Anyone else know anything about that?
LA Times:
Posted 12 Jan 2006 at 6:02 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
dude. you da man.
Posted 12 Jan 2006 at 6:47 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Problem is you or noone else has any proof anyone rights were violated. I don’t buy the argument that wiretappin g suspected terrorists somehow gives up our rights. “Oh but what if YOU were a suspected terrorist????OHHHH NOOOO”, whatever, if I’m suspected of being a terrorists then yes the government has slid into a pithole where it cannot recover. You assume the worst case scenario when there is no reason to do so.
The FISA court traditionally had been a rubberstamp court but Bush received unprecedented rejection or alterations to the requests.
Your alarmist conspiracy attitude is nothing more than a political smoke screen to mask your true goal of getting Bush out no matter what it takes.
No one has yet determined if the wiretaps were illegal. Bush was acting under the authority he and the Justice department and constituional lawyers determined was given to him by congress after 911. If that turns out to be incorrect, well then perhaps congress will make it correct.
911 affected all of us. No I didn’t have family in Manhattan during the attacks but I care for those people as fellow Americans just the same. I care that we were attacked ruthlessly by the very people you accuse Bush of violating their rights….
Posted 12 Jan 2006 at 9:26 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>Problem is you or noone else has any proof anyone rights were violated.
Yet.
Posted 12 Jan 2006 at 9:29 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>You assume the worst case scenario when there is no reason to do so.
You have to if you want balanced government. That’s not what you want? In this case, the check that Congress created was circumvented. This is acceptable to you?
>The FISA court traditionally had been a rubberstamp court but Bush received unprecedented rejection or alterations to the requests.
Unprecedented rejection? Substantiate that, please.
Posted 12 Jan 2006 at 9:34 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>Your alarmist conspiracy attitude is nothing more than a political smoke screen to mask your true goal of getting Bush out no matter what it takes.
Your alarmist fear of the unknown terrorists lurking among us is an excellent political smoke screen to mask the administrations true goal of consolidating power in the executive.
Posted 12 Jan 2006 at 9:40 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
WILL YOU PLEASE ANSWER THE GODDAMN QUESTION?
do you really want a president to cross the line with something like secret surveilance on citizens and then have to prove him guilty? or would you rather the checks and balances worked in the first place? would you feel the same if a democrat was in office?
jesus h christ. I have asked it four times now, jim. You are worst than ficken Alito.
>I don’t buy the argument that wiretappin g suspected terrorists somehow gives up our rights. “Oh but what if YOU were a suspected terrorist????OHHHH NOOOO”,
I have not seen or heard that as an argument anywhere. not here. not on the news. not on the radio, the newspapers, blogs, grafitti, ANYWHERE. You are arguing against something made up by rightwing pundits and flackers.
>Your alarmist conspiracy attitude is nothing more than a political smoke screen to mask your true goal of getting Bush out no matter what it takes.
you have the causality in the wrong direction. I want to get bush out because he is incompetent and ruinous to our way of life. when he was “elected” in 2000 I gave him the benefit of the doubt even though I voted against him. He spent seven months acting like a total boob before completely failing to fight terrorism.
>I care that we were attacked ruthlessly by the very people you accuse Bush of violating their rights
That is a common error right-winger make - that only the rights of “criminals”, or in your case terrorists, are the ones violated. But the rights belong to all of us. If the government violates the rights of one, we all stand to lose by it.
Jim, I try really hard to find something about you I can identify with. I try really hard to not hate your stupid, ignorant, arrogant guts. But you are fricken killing me.
Posted 12 Jan 2006 at 10:46 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>do you really want a president to cross the line with something like secret surveilance on citizens and then have to prove him guilty? or would you rather the checks and balances worked in the first place? would you feel the same if a democrat was in office?
I don’t think he has crossed the line, so it is up to you to prove that he has…..
Posted 12 Jan 2006 at 1:05 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I don’t agree, once you engage in subversive activities to cause harm to the country or its citizens, you forfiet all expectations of right to privacy…
your mistake is in that these are random wirestappings. They are in fact targeted to suspected terrorists, so unless you are a suspected terrorist, your fears are in fact unwarranted and theoretical….
Posted 12 Jan 2006 at 1:11 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>I don’t think he has crossed the line, so it is up to you to prove that he has…..
Jim’s answer is YES.
Posted 12 Jan 2006 at 1:12 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>I don’t agree, once you engage in subversive activities to cause harm to the country or its citizens, you forfiet all expectations of right to privacy…
…or if you piss-off the Prez, Karl Rove or any number of people. If something so simple as a no-fly list is being misused against an author, then how can you have trust in how they’ll use these tools when you do even know when, where and how they’re being used?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/5/85158/32663
Posted 12 Jan 2006 at 1:32 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
dailykos? Are you serious? Perhaps Mr. Smith has more of a secret that he’s not telling everyone….
Get serious, paranoid wingnuts, think themselves more important to get the vengence of the US government….mmmmkay…
Posted 12 Jan 2006 at 3:32 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/3571064.html
mmmkay, how about the Houston Chronicle or is a Texas newspaper too liberal for ya? This piece leaves it up to you to decide if it is “Mistake or Malice”. Either way, its clear that once you are on the no-fly list, there is no way to get off and no way to find out how you got there in the first place.
One thing is clear from this: Bad things are already happening to regular people. Maybe he uttered ‘jihad’ too many times on his cell phone or maybe he has an Arab friend or maybe it is malice. Whatever the case, I highly doubt a man who wrote a best-selling book critical of the administration would simultaneously be planning an attack. That’s not a way to keep a low profile, is it?
So, given that the intelligensia can’t seem to get it right, you still think this is a good idea?
>Get serious, paranoid wingnuts, think themselves more important to get the vengence of the US government….mmmmkay…
Paranoid, eh? Well, if that’s what demanding checks and balances means, then they really are after me, then, aren’t they?
Posted 12 Jan 2006 at 5:25 pm ¶
Mark M wrote:
Jim–
The term “wingnuts” is used when discussing Republicans, not liberals. We’re “moonbats.”
If you’re going to act as if you know what you’re talking about, it helps to get the terminology correct. Sheeeesh …
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 6:01 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
>I don’t think he has crossed the line, so it is up to you to prove that he has…..
apparently reading comprehension is not high in ohio or at SUI. you keep chanting that line while failing to answer the question.
>your mistake is in that these are random wirestappings. They are in fact targeted to suspected terrorists
how do you know? the list is secret and the only oversight is the executive office. essentially you are saying we should just trust the government to not abuse this power. that is bullshit. and it gets back to the question that you insist on avoiding - would you feel the same way if it was kerry or gore in office?
>so unless you are a suspected terrorist, your fears are in fact unwarranted and theoretical
my fears are not unwarranted, thought at the moment they may be theoretical. but that gets back to the other question you won’t answer - do you really want a president to cross the line with something like secret surveilance on citizens and then have to prove him guilty? or would you rather the checks and balances worked in the first place?
our founding fathers had these fears in mind (or something like them) when they wrote the bill of rights. the idea is to have oversight, transparency and checks and balances AHEAD OF TIME rather than give government all they power they want and wait for it to be abused before doing something about it. it is much more difficult to take power back from the governement once they have it.
so basically jim, you either don’t understand the constitution and the bill of rights or living in a police state is just fine with you. ben franklin was right - those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security desreve neither and will lose both.
jim, i wish you would move to china.
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 6:04 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>Mark M Says:
January 13th, 2006 at 6:01 am
Jim–
The term “wingnuts” is used when discussing Republicans, not liberals. We’re “moonbats.”
If you’re going to act as if you know what you’re talking about, it helps to get the terminology correct. Sheeeesh …
I’ve always used wingnuts, for “left wing” nuts….I guess if there is a protocol, I will use moonbats, I’ve seen that used as well. Whichever you prefer…
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 6:54 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
How about “awesometastic brain-geniuses?” How about you respond to Nick’s post too?
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 7:04 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>how do you know? the list is secret and the only oversight is the executive office. essentially you are saying we should just trust the government to not abuse this power. that is bullshit. and it gets back to the question that you insist on avoiding - would you feel the same way if it was kerry or gore in office?
No I wouldn’t feel any different, if the goal was to keep Islamofacists from attacking us again.
>my fears are not unwarranted, thought at the moment they may be theoretical. but that gets back to the other question you won’t answer - do you really want a president to cross the line with something like secret surveilance on citizens and then have to prove him guilty? or would you rather the checks and balances worked in the first place?
Ok, I guess we jsut need to go to the source here….
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 7:11 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Like it or not, that resolution seemingly gives the President broad powers to prevent a future attack…perhap a new bill needs then to specifically define what powers he has against those in the US already…
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 7:15 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
How does spying on an advisor for Clark and Kerry in an election year prevent a future attack?
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 7:17 am ¶
matt wrote:
>No I wouldn’t feel any different, if the goal was to keep Islamofacists from attacking us again.
oh daddy! please protect me from all of the islamofascists in central ohio. they are everywhere.
>Ok, I guess we jsut need to go to the source here….
we’ve already heard from senators of both parties who said that spying of this kind was specifically not included in the resolution. but facts aren’t important, people are trying to kill you, right?
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 7:18 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>all necessary and appropriate force
Force. Is spying “force”? Also, the first bolded statement is essentially a preamble. The law starts at “be it resolved”. There’s nothing in this authorization that gives authority to the preznit that supercedes any existing law.
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 7:23 am ¶
Mark M wrote:
FYI — A “whereas” clause means nothing, as Nick points out.
Also, there are dozens of quote from folks on both sides of the isle that have stated that the resolution in no way give the Prez permission to break the law.
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 7:49 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>Force. Is spying “force”?
Spying is the gathering of intelligence that is needed in order to take the action to use force (arrest, track, kill) a terrorist. Spying is merely gathering intel on the target(s).
>The law starts at “be it resolved”. There’s nothing in this authorization that gives authority to the preznit that supercedes any existing law.
Look at it again, it may not have mention domestic surveillance specifically but that can rightfully be implied be the authorization of force against such persons. One cannot use force without first gathering intel on who and what to use force against….
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 7:55 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>Also, there are dozens of quote from folks on both sides of the isle that have stated that the resolution in no way give the Prez permission to break the law.
They may be saying that now, realizing they made a mistake. They cannot claim they didn’t “mean” it that way. They either need to pass another resolution to clarify or shut up….
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 7:57 am ¶
JimC wrote:
So if you think the President was not specifically given such power, get on the phone and call your senator and tell her to draft a new resolution to clarify the Presidents scope under the AUMF
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 8:00 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Another interesting story from ABC News last night. They ran a piece on the sudden increase of suspicious purchases of large qunatities of untracable throw awqay cell phones since the NSA wiretapping story was leaked.
The FBI has several recent incidents they are investigating where someone purchased, in one case, 150 such phones. These phones are known to be growing in popularity with terrorists because of their complete anonymity.
So, I guess we’ll see if this leak hurt National Security or not…
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 8:04 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>So, I guess we’ll see if this leak hurt National Security or not…
Because defending freedom requires a muzzle for the press. Folks of your ilk need to move to North Korea if that is the type of comfort you require.
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 8:08 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
So what we have here is a clear difference of approach.
Jim says if one act doesn’t say you can’t, then you can. The rest of us argue that if said act doesn’t specifically authorize AND override the existing act (FISA) you can’t. Jim has a point in that Congress can clarify the act further. The other route is via the judiciary. Either way, indications are good that there is significant bipartisan will within Congress to clarify the law.
It still doesn’t explain why Bush stopped using FISA in the first place. If only 5 requests out of thousands were ever rejected, what’s the big deal? Earlier Jim made an unsubstantiated comment that implied Bush had run into unprecedented difficulties with the FISA court.
If that’s the reason, what were those difficulties? If FISA wasn’t flexible enough, the law could have been revisited. With a Republican majority in Congress, why didn’t this happen?
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 8:24 am ¶
JimC wrote:
No, once leaked to the press, that’s game over, its already done. Its the persons who deemed themselves the personal savior of the country to give the press the info, rather than taking it up within congress.
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 8:42 am ¶
Mark M wrote:
Trust me … Emanuel Cleaver knows my name. He’s even sent me a few personal e-mails.
The guy’s some work to do on Capitol Hill (he’s a Hill n00b) but I get the feeling he’ll do a damn fine job. They guy’s still living and already has a street named after him here in KC. :-)
Unfortunately, the Senators are Kit Bond and Jim Talent. And while I’ve sent them several e-mails, I’ve received nothing of substance in return.
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 8:44 am ¶
JimC wrote:
This is the source of my claim that Bush was met with unprecedented resistence from FISA after 911. Sure the percentage seems low, but it only takes 1 case to fall thru the cracks that leads to a devastating attack like 911 or worse….
Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them
WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) — U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.
A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.
The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years of the court’s operation.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered “substantive modifications” took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years — the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court’s history.
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 8:48 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
179/5645=.0317…
.0317*100 = 3.17%
A 96% success rate is arguably STILL a rubberstamp. Unprecedented, maybe. A hinderance? Highly unlikely.
In addition, Mr. Bush has already made approximately 43% of the pre-9/11 number of requests made in the first 22 years of the FISA provision and he isn’t even halfway through his second term. Arguably his rate of requests is also unprecedented.
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 8:58 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>Sure the percentage seems low, but it only takes 1 case to fall thru the cracks that leads to a devastating attack like 911 or worse….
Hell, with several warnings via the FBI & CIA, 9/11 was not prevented. So, 1 case is gonna kill us? Looks like we’re screwed anyway…
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 9:00 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
>Like it or not, that resolution seemingly gives the President broad powers to prevent a future attack…
>the President has authority under the Constitution
What do you think that last part means? “under the constitution”. Not above it, ot around it, not beyond it. Under it. It means he is still subject to it.
It authorized the use of force. Not disregarding the constitution. Not spying on US persons without a warrant. “WITHOUT A WARRANT” is the key phrase here.
>perhap a new bill needs then to specifically define what powers he has against those in the US already…
Perhaps this covers it:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
or perhaps this:
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802—-000-.html
Jim, just say it, you are a fascist and support the transformation of our democracy to a dictatorship.
>Congress can clarify the act further.
True, except that Bush is now signing bills into law with a note saying that he will break the law if he feels like it.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/
>So, I guess we’ll see if this leak hurt National Security or not…
spare me. how dumb do you think they are? I am sure the bad guys assume they are being watched and take precautions.
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 9:12 am ¶
Mark M wrote:
WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!
Does this mean I don’t have to pay my student loan back?
On topic: If the FISA court, which had regularly and consistently approved the requests at an amazingly high rate, suddenly started to deny requests, doesn’t that say something about the requests being made (i.e. they failed to meet even the FISA court’s pretty broad standards)?
THAT’S why I have an issue with the Prez’s end run — if the FISA court thought the requests were out of line, then it is logical to assume that the Bush administration was seeking to tap people who shouldn’t have been (i.e. Amanpour) because the court had been so incredibly rumber-stampesque in the past.
Sure, some may tell me I need a heavier weight foil for my hat, but IMHO it’s not that big of a reach to think BushCo. were asking for warrants that were out of line.
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 9:19 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>Sure, some may tell me I need a heavier weight foil for my hat, but IMHO it’s not that big of a reach to think BushCo. were asking for warrants that were out of line.
Try the AFDB. It works for me: http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
>if the FISA court thought the requests were out of line, then it is logical to assume that the Bush administration was seeking to tap people who shouldn’t have been (i.e. Amanpour) because the court had been so incredibly rumber-stampesque in the past.
Logical, yes indeedillydoo. Faith-based, no.
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 9:28 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Never got a real response from you on this one, Jim.
Posted 13 Jan 2006 at 9:41 am ¶