Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JGrubbs, Dec 15, 2005.

  1. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

    Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

    The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval represents a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

    Source: The New York Times
     
  2. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm not concerned about this. Maybe I should be, but I'm not. I'll tell you why. Have you ever stood in a Chinese Restaurant and seen posters on the walls advertising phone cards to a lot of other countries (including terrorist states???)? I have. And just the other day, I was wondering how many terrorists in our courtry are buying these phone cards and communicating with other terrorists overseas.

    The cook really shouldn't have taken so long to cook my egg rolls.... :rolleyes:
     
  3. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Good ole George!
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    A terrible decision by the Bush administration. Definitely unconstitutional. Maybe even an impeachable offense?

    There is no good reason why warrants should not have been obtained.
     
  5. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with LE on this one. I'm willing to let the government listen in on my telephone conversations if it increases the chances of catching some terrorist scumbag before he attacks innocent civilians. Even more so if it means there's a good chance of seeing a video clip, on the Internet, of an American AC-130 Spectre gunship blowing up a terrorist planting a bomb. I also have no interest in seeing captured terrorists, I want to see dead terrorists.
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then they should ask you to sign a waiver to give up your rights. The government can keep its ugly nose out of my telephone conversations unless it gets a warrant.
     
  7. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    72
    Bush should be impeached. I can't believe I voted for him!! :mad:
     
  8. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Get real. They have been listening to telephone conversations for years. They have automatic equipment. The job is to defend the country and protect the President.
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    That doesn't make it right to do so without a warrant.

    Sounds like you, cmg, would be willing to run the U.S. constitution through the paper shredder in the name of defense.
     
  10. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    If this happened, it's awful. If the NY Times article is proven to be fraudulent, which is the sentiment being trumpeted by many, will there be any apologies ?

    BTW, several people knew about the wiretaps, there was little secret about it.
     
  11. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    There is an excellent debunking of this story, and a great expose of the America hating, filthy bird cage liner called the NY Times at www.michellemalkin.com

    Shows the book deal, the publisher, and the folks who apparently knew about the "secret" wire taps.

    The NY Times, the libbies, et al, hate Bush so much they can't talk about the huge success in Iraq, yesterday. That's what this is about.
     
  12. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    From what I read, it won't violate the letter of the law... and was done with the assent of Intelligence committees in Congress and the judge that normally would issue the warrants.

    To get to Bush, they would have to dirty up leading Senate and House Democrats as well. Just as important they would dirty up Republicans that have a habit of eating their own when perceived necessary.
     
  13. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you don't have anything to hide, what's the big deal? Especially, if it will protect thousands of people if a terrorist is stopped.

    They aren't listening to you to get juicy bits of gossip. In fact, unless you are a terrorist, they could care less about what you say.

    Bottom line is that you will never know when it takes place, whether here on the net, e-mail or on the phone. [​IMG]
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    There were many good points in that article... though I am still concerned that privacy rights can be so expediently discarded. Doing it to legit terrorists could be the basis for doing it to fundamental Christians in the future.

    OTOH, I especially liked the point about the NYT's hypocrisy. They have been on the lead edge of prosecuting Bush on Plame... yet here they have leaked information that could easily get agents in the field killed. But it must be OK since this is a case of leaks that hurt Bush rather than defend him.
     
  15. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    40 mm rounds making hamburger out of terrorists? Hmmmmmm. not bad fromtheright...... [​IMG]
     
  16. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you don't have anything to hide, what's the big deal? Especially, if it will protect thousands of people if a terrorist is stopped. </font>[/QUOTE] Whooooooaaaa Phillip. I feel often that I have a mind meld with you when you write but this needs more consideration.

    What if what you needed to hide happened to be hate speech/thought against homosexuals? What if the government wanted to make you spy against a friend and used personal info divulged in private conversations to manipulate you?

    This is a Pandora's box. The rationale we accept today better be narrow enough to prevent expansion later.

    Our nation was founded by people commonly considered terrorists. It is necessary for government to fear the people and that includes preserving enough privacy that people can plot a rebellion against the government if necessary.

    And that's the worst thing.
     
  17. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott, I was just stirring the pot a little. Nothing like a good reaction to privacy being stolen by the government.

    In reality; I agree that the government has USED the terrorist attacks to their advantage. YES, I agree with that and I also disagree that the internet is not being treated like telephone and requiring warrants to view private e-mail.

    I am 100% against terrorism and 100% against violation of privacy when it is being abused.

    The entire problem with monitoring electronic transmissions is two factors:

    1) We have come to rely on communications that is very easy to tap. IE wireless phones, internet transmissions, etc.

    2) The fact that an "evil" government could use these technologies against the general population, if they so choose. Even if the current government is trying to do what is right (and I think in general they are)--they are putting technologies in place that are VERY susceptable to future abuse.

    I think we are still on-track.
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
  19. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    ScottJ,

    Our nation was founded by people commonly considered terrorists.

    You know, I've gotten used to hearing what a bunch of slouches and beasts the Founders were for tolerating slavery and treatment of the Indians, but this is just an outright lie, Scott. What did they do that would remotely be considered terroristic, i.e., meant to incite terror? Throwing some tea in a harbor? I can accept rabble rousers because Samuel Adams surely meets that category but to call them terrorists is at best ridiculous.
     
  20. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    My favorite part of the article is where we're expected to believe the NYT sat on this article for a year because the white house asked them to.
     

Share This Page

Loading...