Old 17th December 2005, 18:42   #1
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Bush Authorized Eavesdropping

President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he authorized the National Security Agency "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations" and said leaks to the media about the program were illegal.

Sources have told CNN that Bush signed a secret order in 2002 allowing the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans and others in the United States who are communicating with people overseas. The story was first reported Friday in The New York Times.

During an unusual live, on-camera version of his weekly radio address, Bush said such authorization is "fully consistent" with his "constitutional responsibilities and authorities." (Watch Bush explain why he 'authorized the National Security Agency ... to intercept' -- 4:29)

"This is highly classified program crucial to our national security" and "its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks," Bush said.

"The existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly given to news organizations," Bush said. "Unauthorized disclosure damages our national security and puts our nation at risk.

"Revealing this information is illegal."

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said Saturday: "There's not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing wiretaps."

"If he needs a wiretap, the authority is already there -- the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act," Feingold said. "They can ask for a warrant to do that and even if there's an emergency situation they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of 72 hours."

Feingold said "it's a sad day" in light of what he heard Bush say.

"He authorized these wiretaps even though there was no specific law allowing it," Feingold said. "He's trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this and that's just absurd."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/...nsa/index.html

Question: If revealing information that could hinder national security and terrorism are so bad (as Bush has put it) then why hasn't he sought out and dealt with thouse who leaked the information of CIA agent Valerie Plame who was a counterterrorism agent of the Federal Government? Anyone want to bet he goes after whomever leaked this information very quikcly whils still playing the DeLay ...err delay game with those in his own administration who leaked just as sensitive of information to the very same press?

IMPEACH BUSH.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2005, 18:58   #2
mikm
Major Dude
 
mikm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 1,255
Constitutional authority my ass.

powered by C₂H₅OH
mikm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2005, 06:05   #3
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Re: Bush Authorized Eavesdropping

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he authorized the National Security Agency "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations" and said leaks to the media about the program were illegal.
Did the CIA and the NSA change their policy regarding wiretapping since GB was president?.... nope... Wiretapping and survelliance is their job.

These wiretaps are inadmissable in court. Warrants generated from these wiretaps are invalid.

This is normal procedure for the CIA and NSA and as long as they are not assuming an internal law enforcement role, I don't have a problem.

So I guess you can try to figure out a way to blame Bush for normal operations of our security services, but it doesn't fly....
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th December 2005, 05:20   #4
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Re: Re: Bush Authorized Eavesdropping

Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
So I guess you can try to figure out a way to blame Bush for normal operations of our security services, but it doesn't fly....
"If he needs a wiretap, the authority is already there -- the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act," Feingold said. "They can ask for a warrant to do that and even if there's an emergency situation they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of 72 hours."

The sad fact is the ability to wiretap or otherwise spy on someone suspected of anything illegal already existed but there is a lawful process that was set in place to conduct such surveliance. The President essentially went into the playbook of agencies like the old KGB, ignored those procedures and clearly authorized unauthorized spying and eavesdropping on ordinary American citizens and also never notified any of these people before, during or after the fact that they were being spied upon.

It was also on the news this evening many pieces of information concerning 'secret detention centers' the US has been operating worldwide, secret aircraft and kidnappings of people all around the world who were held without a trial or any reason at these detention centers at the hands of the CIA and US government. It's been clearly verified including flight records and first hand eyewitness accounts of these things occuring.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2005, 12:27   #5
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/...27network.html

Perhaps we could remember the Clinton funded Echelon project to tap every phone on the planet and have supercomputers decipher which conversations may represent a terrorist threat. With that and the "clipper chip" they set out to wiretap the entire planet.

So Bush ordered some wiretaps on people the security services considered a possible threat.... big deal....
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2005, 12:34   #6
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
Yea, no big deal EXCEPT he did it illegally.

Also, if you say that they can search my home, tap my phone, check my e-mail because "you have nothing to hide" you are a fool.
We allow the president to illegally spy on American citizens, what happens next?
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2005, 13:57   #7
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
I can just see it now.
Sometime in the near future, we'll get attacked again.
Only this time, instead of losing 3,000 people, we'll lose 6,000 innocent people.
A few days later, we'll learn that the terrorists who attacked us,
were using cell phones to get directions and the go-ahead
from their leaders back in the Middle East.
And all of these defeatest liberal Democrats
will scream bloody murder that George Bush let this happen,
because he wasn't doing enough to intercept those calls.

The NYTimes has become Al-Qaeda's intelligence gathering agency.
And the liberal Democrats are inadvertantly and unconsciously aiding our enemies.
Why do I say that?
Because I remember something that happened after the Vietnam war.
They interviewed the general of the North Vietnamese,
and asked him if the Viet Cong could have won the war in Vietnam militarily.
He said they didn't have to.
But he said he knew the Viet Cong would eventually win,
because America would defeat herself from within.
And all he had to do was wait it out.
Quote:

"However, he read U.S. newspaper reports and editorials which claimed TET was a communist victory rather than an American one. General Giap read in these same U.S. newspapers about our campus protests and anti-war activities. He came to realize that the American military did not have the support of the citizens. He changed his strategy from aggression to attrition. He believed he did not have to defeat America to win. He saw that America would defeat itself. He simply needed to hang on. Consequently, General Giap did not surrender. He simply hung on.

In 1971 and 1972, the United States military launched a relentless bombing campaign against North Viet Nam. Most major factories were destroyed. The morale of the people and the NVA was broken. As he stated in this same interview, General Giap was about to surrender a second time. Again he read the news accounts of public protests, university campuses in shambles and marches in the streets in opposition to the war. The unrest in America gave him the resolve to stick to his strategy....just hold on. America will defeat herself. Again, he did not surrender, but simply hung on.

Although he made several profound statements, General Giap shared how important the American media was to his cause. He called our newspapers and university campuses his "Fifth Column" and said they accomplished more than his own army. In fact, as early as 1966 the (North) Viet Namese News Agency wrote "We praise the American peace champions. The movement of the American people to protest against the war of aggression has really become the second front against U.S. imperialists."
He was absolutely right, and that's what happened.

Same is true today.
I fear we are on that path to defeat ourselves from within,
thanks to the NY Times, the rest of the mainstream media,
and once again, the liberal Democrats, who orchestrated our defeat in Vietnam.
(Sadly, looking back on those times, I was one of those liberal Democrats.)

Some people never learn from our history.
Either that, or there are two wars going on.
One war is being fought against terrorists,
and the other is being fought against George Bush.
Now you tell me, honestly, which one is more important to win?

Last edited by papadoc; 20th December 2005 at 16:36.
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2005, 14:25   #8
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Blind patriotism isn't going to help, sorry. I refuse to accept the argument that Freedom of Speech is an enemy of democracy.

"If the president does it, it can't be a crime."

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2005, 15:27   #9
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
Yes indeed, free speech is not an enemy of democracy, and it should never be.
But sometimes free speech crosses a thin line,
and becomces seditionous or treasonous.
That's not acceptable to me.
People are entitled to say whatever they want,
but if they cross that line, then they should expect to be criticized.
And I'm not advocating silence.
All I'm saying is the left needs to think about what they're saying, not shut up.

btw...If the president broke the law, then he should suffer the consequences.
So please don't assume I would think differently.
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2005, 16:52   #10
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by papadoc
People are entitled to say whatever they want, but if they cross that line, then they should expect to be criticized.
I agree. But calling them "friends of the enemy" is just plain wrong. Criticise their views and their words, sure, but criticising their choice to speak at all does not seem right to me.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2005, 22:36   #11
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
I served my country.........for freedom, not the right to lose those freedoms. I am neither democrat or republican, left or right wing, I just know right from wrong and to have a government chip away at my freedoms is NOT what this country was founded on.
If illegal wiretapping is allowed, how long will it be until we're all listened in on?
Get a fucking search warrant like we have for decades
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2005, 22:54   #12
LuigiHann
Forum King
 
LuigiHann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: 80's Japan
Posts: 3,436
Send a message via AIM to LuigiHann
In America, you listen to the President. In Soviet Russia America, President listens to you!


Who is the milkman? What is the purpose of the goggles?
LuigiHann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2005, 23:28   #13
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally posted by papadoc
I can just see it now.
Sometime in the near future, we'll get attacked again.
Only this time, instead of losing 3,000 people, we'll lose 6,000 innocent people.
A few days later, we'll learn that the terrorists who attacked us,
were using cell phones to get directions and the go-ahead
from their leaders back in the Middle East.
And all of these defeatest liberal Democrats
will scream bloody murder that George Bush let this happen,
because he wasn't doing enough to intercept those calls.
Interesting hypothetical situation, Now let's talk about some things that have actually happened.

If we lose six thousand people in the next terrorist attack, that's only one fifth of the amount of Iraqi civilians that have lost their lives already-- I got that statistic from George Bush himself.

When the 9/11 attacks took place on George Bush's watch, was he criticized by the left for not spying on us enough? Not to my recollection. He was criticized for not paying any attention to his daily briefing: "Al Quieda Determined to Attack in the United States" He didn't say a word about it to anyone. I don't expect my leaders to be all seeing, I expect them to be competent.

The bipartisan 9/11 commission recently graded the nation's preparedness for another attack. Out of 41 categorites, the administration and congress was graded 5 "F"s and 4 "D"s, and an overall grade of C minus. The response to hurricane Katrina suggests that may be optimistic. They keep telling us that they will go to any length to protect us, but when the interests of "protecting us" don't coincide with expanding their power, they don't seem to care.

Quote:
Either that, or there are two wars going on.
One war is being fought against terrorists,
and the other is being fought against George Bush.
Now you tell me, honestly, which one is more important to win?
Honestly? I don't like saying this, but I think the "war" (your metaphor, not mine) against George Bush is more important than the war against terrorists, though they're both pretty important. Al Queda has the ability to kill Americans. The ruthless and unprinicipaled grab for power by the neocons has the potential to kill America itself if it's allowed to continue without oversight. I'll never convince you of the danger, but the framers of the constition were convinced, and that's why they created the checks and balances that the Bush administration treats with such reckless disregard.

Anyway, that's a false choice, since the administration has fucked up the war against the terrorists in every possible way they could fuck it up. Iraq didn't used to be a big terrorist training ground, but now it is. It's nice to see Saddam on trial and the Iraqis voting, but if the idea was to make us safer, I think it's pretty obvious that the opposite was accomplished. They tell us that this is how they fight the terrorists there "so we don't have to fight them here." That's absurd. It's like the doctor who tells his patient: "You have a brain tumor, but a brain tumor is hard to operate on, so I'm going to inject these cancer cells into your leg. We operate on your leg, and the problem is solved!" The logic is about the same.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2005, 00:43   #14
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
Anytime there is war, there are three kinds of onlookers.

those who support the war.
Those who oppose the war from logical grounds,
and those who hate war.
Anytime there is war, there are three four kinds of onlookers.

those who support the war.
Those who oppose the war from logical grounds,
those who oppose the war on blind partisan basis,
and those who hate war.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2005, 03:19   #15
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
Anytime there is war, there are three four kinds of onlookers.

those who support the war.
Those who oppose the war from logical grounds,
those who oppose the war on blind partisan basis,
and those who hate war.
Don't you think there are people who support the war on logical grounds,
People who support the war on a blind partisan basis,
and people who love war?
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2005, 03:53   #16
mikm
Major Dude
 
mikm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 1,255
People who support the war from a purely economic standpoint? Major shareholders of defense contractors?

powered by C₂H₅OH
mikm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2005, 04:12   #17
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
Don't you think there are people who support the war on logical grounds,
People who support the war on a blind partisan basis,
and people who love war?
Of course. But given the context of what I posted, there's no need to differentiate between them.

It should also be noted that everyone in the last three categories thinks that they fall into the second.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2005, 06:17   #18
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Here's the problem though - the President has clearly told us that Congress gave him the authority to do it. Republican congressmen today stated this is not true. The President also said the Constitution gives him the authority to do it. A Republican senator said this is not true either.

The President says this spying was being done to combat terrorism. According to FBI documents obtained by the New York Times some of the people who had surveliance done on them include PETA, Greenpeace, Catholic Workers Group. In one instance the FBI spying was used to determine the location of a protest over llama fur by PETA.

It is clear proof that the President is using these illegal wiretaps for reasons other than to combat terrorism and this time even Republicans are agreeing that the President does not have the right to conduct such surveliance.

Oh, and FYI to date there has been no proof the wiretaps nor the Patriot Act has stopped any terrorist actions.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2005, 06:30   #19
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
The constitution clearly does give him the power to do so, with a warrant.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2005, 12:51   #20
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
Where?
Do you know how this story got to the press?
Several members of the NSA came forward saying they weren't empowered to do something this illegal. I'm sure they break several international laws on a daily basis but THIS is wrong?

This opens the door for this hypothetical situation:
WE suspect you of downloading music and movies. Now that we have that suspition, we're going to enter your house and search your computer, without a warrant.
FOOLS!
When we lose all our freedoms/privacy, don't say shit about it if you're willing to let this slide.
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2005, 17:01   #21
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Well, for the sake of preventing terrorism then I have no problem with them spying on people if they are suspected of terrorism. Somehow I really don't see PETA being involved in terrorism nor thus far anyone they have committed these illegal acts on.

An NBC reporter repeatedly asked the White House if there was any proof whatsoever that either the Patriot Act or this illegal spying had actually stopped or detected even one terrorist or terrorist action. The White House responded with "The President needs all the tools he can get at his disposal to act and react quickly.". The reporter asked two more times and they responded with the same line.

Sadly we have a President which has used terrorism to spy on our own people and groups which have no links at all to terrorism. We have a Congress that will change long standing rules on a whim just to get a law passed for one of their contributors or supporters. We have a govermnet spending money like it's going out of style on pork barrel projects and a war we never should have been involved with while slashing educational funding, public aid and any program which benefits those who generally don't vote Republican.

The terrorists have already won. Our government ignores the people and does what it pleases people be damned and our personal freedoms are evaporating quicker than ether.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2005, 18:20   #22
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Okay, I have to admit that I haven't read the patriot act, but one of the criticsms has been that it is extremely broad in its definition of terrorism. So actually it may be that PETA is considered a terorist orgainzation, or more likely some more militant animal rights organization that shares some members with PETA, since you only need to be suspected of associating with "terrorists" to be a target. When you consider the implications, it's pretty much a blank check to spy on anyone.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2005, 18:36   #23
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
heh that also includes pretty much any idiot who took part in any of the International ANSWER protests in the past few years.

Last edited by Mattress; 21st December 2005 at 21:09.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2005, 21:10   #24
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
John Schmidt, who was Associate Attorney General under Clinton, says that the President has inherent authority to wiretap suspected terrorists for national security reasons.

Quote:
President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
Whether or not that is right is up to you I guess but Bush isn't making up new ways of running roughshod over our rights, at least not in this instance.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2005, 21:30   #25
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
Jimmy Carter's Executive Order

Bill Clinton's Executive Order
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2005, 21:47   #26
tuckerm
Forum Emo
 
tuckerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,365
clinton did the same thing and no one is whineing about that.
so did carter:

http://drudgereport.com/flash8.htm
tuckerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2005, 22:05   #27
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
That's because Clinton and Carter weren't Bush.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2005, 22:18   #28
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
What is the appropriate amount of whining to do about something that happened 25 years ago?

No, this isn't good, and if there's a difference, I'd love for Mr. Clinton and Mr. Carter to explain it to us. I hope there is, but I'm not sophisticated or informed enough to figure it out... nor, do I suspect, is Matt Drudge.

I will say that, to me, this sort of thing seems more disturbing from Bush's administration, in the context of such events as Cheney's fierce lobbying for the right of the CIA to torture, and what I shall charitably refer to as the appearance of misuse of questionable intelligence to justify the war, etc etc etc... but that's all subjective, The law is the law, and so if we're arguing whether Democratic Presidents are more law abiding thatn Republican Presidents, it looks like you may have scored a point.

On the other hand, if we're arguing whether the current president respects the law, it don't mean dick.

One thing I would like to know is if these Democratic executive orders were kept secret. If these were always in the public record, I'd consider that to be a major difference.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2005, 00:19   #29
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Partisan tip of the day!

When faced with new information, don't worry about investigating! Just deny it and keep bashing the other party! Tune into MSNBC or Foxnews for further information!


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2005, 00:26   #30
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
If it had been kept secret the opposite party would have reactd the same was as now.
Fools!
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2005, 06:06   #31
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
From Carters reports:

Quote:
the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order
From Clinton's
Quote:
the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information
Again the problem. Those orders are for obtaining FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE, not intelligence on organizations opposed to Bush's policy as well as ordinary Americans with no ties to terrorism. Those reports are moot because they are orders for foreign intelligence collection, not domestic intelligence collection.

Now if you take a close look at the fine Druge report you'll find Matt had this problem with leaving large portions of the paragraph completely out of his post. Although these are similar issues Bush has been wiretapping people with absolutely no ties to foreign entities, terrorists or any thing outside of their opposition to Bush policy.

I'll also add in something else no one paid any attention to on those reports:

Quote:
the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
In other words someone still has to certify these actions and there is still a due process to proceed with any such searches.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2005, 12:48   #32
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
I have nothing more to add here due to my being contacted by the FBI. It would seem that by making comments against the current administration, I am somehow a terrorist. Apparently, the NSA was eavesdropping on my e-mails and forum posts.

Sound ridiculous?

FOOLS!
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2005, 14:32   #33
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Are you serious? That would mean that the NSA has read all our forum posts as well. Gives you a warm feeling, doesn't it?
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2005, 15:49   #34
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
anyone can read our forum posts, they're public.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2005, 16:26   #35
mikm
Major Dude
 
mikm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 1,255
/waits for Windude

powered by C₂H₅OH
mikm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2005, 16:36   #36
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
Starts when your always afraid
Step outta line, the man comes, and takes you away


papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2005, 16:40   #37
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Mattress, you're not so dumb that you can't tell the difference between someone reading our posts and the government monitoring them. I don't have a problem with anybody reading my posts, but if they were really reading Chevele's emails, who's to say they're not reading mine or yours?

Of course, I'm not one hundred per cent convinced this really happened, just because some anonymous guy in an intenet forum said it did,(sorry, Chevelle) but if it did, I think the worst part (assuming that citizens aren't going to be harassed for their views) would be the extreme unliklihood that terrorists are going to in any way indicate their intention to strike by posting on winamp.com. If this is happening, money and resources are being spent on this, and it's liable to hurt more than help. When you're trying to find a needle in a haystack, is it really a good idea to gather more hay?

To bottom-line it, I don't trust the current administration to use intelligence intelligently. They didn't see the danger that was there before 9/11, and they saw danger that wasn't there in Iraq. They tell us they've prevented attacks, but they've told us a lot of things that just weren't true, and they're bound to do something right occasionally, if only by accident.

Obviously, some intelligent intelligence gathering is necessary, and sometimes that has to be very careful and very thorough, and the responsibility for protecting us from another attack must be awesome. But they've misused intelligence before (revealing a CIA operative to the press is a misuse of intelligence if anything is), and if they're going to misuse intelligence, that means the more intelligence they gather, the more potential for misuse.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2005, 17:16   #38
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Sarcasm = *
Internet = |
Chev = C
spiderbaby = S
post = P

Diagram of what just happened:

code:


C -> P* -> P* -> P* -> | -> P -> P -> S



Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2005, 18:42   #39
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
Mattress, you're not so dumb that you can't tell the difference between someone reading our posts and the government monitoring them.
if the government wants to monitor our posts on this forum they're certainly free to do so. I don't really care if they do, other than its probably a waste of resources.

I don't have a problem with the current administration's intel, it's as good as the rest of the world that also thought Saddam had WMDs.

what I find funny is that you really believed that Chev was being harrassed by the NSA for his anti-administration posts when you yourself have not been harassed for your anti-adminstration posts which are generally much more extreme (IMHO).
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2005, 23:13   #40
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
if the government wants to monitor our posts on this forum they're certainly free to do so. I don't really care if they do, other than its probably a waste of resources.

I don't have a problem with the current administration's intel, it's as good as the rest of the world that also thought Saddam had WMDs.
Maybe the rest of the world thought he had WMDs. I think that's because the rest of the world didn't have the intelligence, so naturally they had to assume the worse. We had satellite pictures, and we said we had proof. Cheney said "There is no doubt." Not the same.

Anyway, my point is that they misused the intelligence, so whether or not the rest of the world started a costly and counterproductive war based on their intelligence is relevant to the point. The rest of the world didn't. Therefore, also not the same.

Quote:
what I find funny is that you really believed that Chev was being harrassed by the NSA for his anti-administration posts when you yourself have not been harassed for your anti-adminstration posts which are generally much more extreme (IMHO).
Dear Lord, can you read? I treated this as a hypothetical throughout.

Quote:
Are you serious? That would mean...


Quote:
Of course, I'm not one hundred per cent convinced this really happened, just because some anonymous guy in an intenet forum said it did,(sorry, Chevelle) but if it did, I think the worst part (assuming that citizens aren't going to be harassed for their views) would be the extreme unliklihood that terrorists are going to in any way indicate their intention to strike by posting on winamp.com. If this is happening, money and resources are being spent on this, and it's liable to hurt more than help. When you're trying to find a needle in a haystack, is it really a good idea to gather more hay?


Now, speaking to the realm of the hypothetical, I'm not really aware of who is more or less critical of the administration than I am, but if they're questioning someone, that doesn't mean they're not investigating someone else. The real object of an investigation probably wouldn't be contacted at all.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump