Bush refuses to answer questions about spying on Americans....

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Dec 16, 2005.

  1. #21     Dec 17, 2005
  2. Why was it easier to authorize new secret laws, than to just have a judge sign off on each individual wiretap? Can anybody answer that?
    #22     Dec 17, 2005
  3. I think there are two answers. One is the need for speed in accessing contacts they retrieved from seized computers, etc. By the time some Justice Department 9 to 5-er got together the warrant application, got it to a judge who works 10-2 with a nice lunch break, got it approved, etc, then the word would be out that the terrorist cell had been compromised and no one would try to communicate with them.

    The other issue is the need to maintain operational security. Lawyers, judges, law clerks, secretaries, etc all would have access to the info. Not good when you're talking about a highly secret program designed to sniff out terrorist plots. As it was, some people in the security agencies or perhaps the congress seemed to think it was acceptable to talk to the NY Times and reveal the details of the program.
    #23     Dec 17, 2005
  4. I can guarantee you that there is no point in trying to show hapabuoy that his views are un-American. He was vomiting all over another thread here at ET, telling us all about how the citizens whose lives he deemed 'worthless' should be executed by the state. He was telling us that we should 'try' executing a few people and then see what effect it had on this or that social metric, a bizarre experiment of some sort which involved the ultimate insult to the liberty of the individual by the state - that is, the confiscation of life. I know this sounds unbelievable; those of us who were reading it were too stunned to respond at first.

    I tried to pose some questions which would show him that his definitions of worth were arbitrary. He refused to answer any of them and told me to start a new thread. He then insisted that I first answer questions posed by him before he would answer me, even though I was the first to ask him to clarify his position. After 30 pages of trying to reason with him I bowed out and he called me a coward for doing so. Other posters asked him to clarify the inconsistencies in his position. He told them to start a new thread.

    Hap's arguments make him feel good but aren't easy to back up. He loves the phrase 'ad hominem' and will invoke it whenever he is unable to defend his position.

    Hap, hap... when I read the title of this thread, I knew I'd find you in here spouting your fascist nonsense. At least you're consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent.

    By the way, happy, you seemed to censure another poster here for profanity. Ironic, considering that your views are the most profane and vulgar things on this thread.
    #24     Dec 17, 2005
  5. Yes, it is truly amazing. These people apparently don't realize that the burden of rectitude is upon us in the West. No matter what happens, the one thing we cannot do is to buckle and use the tactics of our enemies, tactics which represent a betrayal of our fundamental values. The whole point of the whole thing is that we are above these procedures. We have rules, and laws, based on our philosophies, which protect the rights of citizens. These are the very rights which the fascists and theocrats deny their citizens.We must follow the rule of law, but more importantly we must stick to our principles because that is what we are fighting for - that is our way of lfe.

    I love this kind of thing. To tell the truth, I don't think anyone who could compose the following paragraphs would be stupid enough to believe in the fantasy that they represent

    So the program itself is reviewed every 45 days, is it? Great. And using 'FTAs'? Wow. And 'information from previous activities under the program'? The death rattle you hear is illegal search and seizure dying an ignominous death. Is the writer suggesting that the program might be wound back based on 'information from previous activites under the program' or legal reviews by the people who conceived it in the first place?

    Actually the more I read that particular para., the less sense it makes.

    Your comment about Joe Average being monitored or not is a stupid simplification. The issue is the right of citizens to privacy. It has nothing to do with cell phones. It would be impossible to itemize here the number of ways in which this kind policy decision could result in an abrogation of privacy rights.

    Extensive training??? Does this even warrant a response?

    Is there any question that abuses occur when the door is opened a crack, when bureaucrats are given the opportunity to abridge the rights of citizens based on their own preferences/predilections/politics?

    For example, hap, what would happen if you were in charge? Are you telling me that the 'extensive training' would be enough to stop you from enacting your fascist policies? You would put a gun to the head of anyone who didn't fit in with your way of thinking, just as you said you'd like to do. Are you saying that there aren't others like you?

    Hap I hate to tell you this, but your comments on the other thread, about how you'd like to execute those who you find 'worthless', combined with the statement you made above, is the definitive rebuttal for your own argument. You and those of your ilk are the reason that we can't take these risks with our freedoms.
    #25     Dec 17, 2005
  6. Your arguments sound reasonable enough, but I used to watch the show 'COPS', back before I detested them too much to even do that. Judges get woken up in the middle of the night to sign warrants all the time! It's part of their job. Law clerks and secretaries don't have to be involved. The judges can do their work for them, in cases where extreme secrecy is necessary.
    #26     Dec 17, 2005
  7. Wasn't there set up post 9/11 a system under the Homeland security act where the government could get warrants issued 24/7, in an essentially secret process? I read somewhere that 96% of all these requests are fulfilled. If this is the case, the earlier question is relevant - why not just get a warrant?
    #27     Dec 17, 2005
  8. For starters, there is a crucial need to act quickly on intelligence that is gathered. I.E., the cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses as a result of Zubaydah's capture. Within hours, his contacts would know something was wrong and terminate communications. That is not enough time to go through the bureaucratic mess to obtain a warrant.


    "Some brief background: The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

    The reason the President probably had to sign an executive order is that the Justice Department office that processes FISA requests, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), can take over 6 months to get a standard FISA request approved. It can become extremely bureaucratic, depending on who is handling the request. His executive order is not contrary to FISA if he believed, as he clearly did, that he needed to act quickly. The president has constitutional powers, too. "


    Your blind faith that this administration is evil and corrupt and abusive is not amazing at all. Is there a single thought in you at all that leads you to believe that Bush is doing what he ought to be doing - protect the American public?

    Okay, when you can make rational comparisons - not broad strokes of generality that will not stand up to any reasonable analysis - between Russia in the 30's and this country at the present, I'll perhaps buy into your conspiracy mindset.
    #28     Dec 17, 2005
  9. Pabst


    I'm curious for opinions by the libertarians of ET on issues such as sobriety field tests and breathalyzers.

    The same libs who are going apeshit about the U.S. wiretapping
    are the types who think drunk driving should be policed by drivers providing self incriminating evidence, who ignore the second amendments right for American's to bare arms, ect....

    How many who are bashing Bush on wiretapping have also criticized him for not marshalling Federal troops on the border for immigration patrols in clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits using the military for police work.

    No one is thrilled about the government spying. No one was exactly pumped about 19 detected and suspected arabs who flew jumbo jets into populated buildings on the East coast either.

    If I reported an Iman who's making veiled threats there's very little that can be legally done. Few judges will swear out a warrant on trash talking. Yet experience tells us that those types of guys may be running cells and traditional laws give us little intelligence. Why was the Mafia able to stay in business? Because there's only so much we can legally do. Well terrorists are more imposing than bookmakers....
    #29     Dec 17, 2005
  10. Just going to beat you to the punch hap

    None of us wants to hamstring our government in their legal, informed-by-our-core-values strategy to deal with the maniacs who want to kill us. Unfortunately, you can't protect the public and undermine their rights at the same time. Those two things are mutually excusive.

    I know you won't understand this, but... protecting citizens means protecting all aspects of their existence, not just the ones that are convenient to you. But then, given that you espouse the execution of citizens whose behaviours you don't like....
    #30     Dec 17, 2005