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

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

  1. Response to tradernik: Glance, read latest distortion of other thread's events, laugh, laugh again, discard.

    At least you're consistent in your fallacies. :D
    #41     Dec 17, 2005
  2. The 1984-ing of America

    Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts is a very misleading headline. It gives the impression that U.S. intelligence agencies are listening in on every phone call you make, that they're recording your conversation asking your spouse to pick up some milk on the way home from work.

    In fact, this piece in The New York Times reports that:

    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.

    This report will surely drive civil liberties organizations such as the ACLU bonkers. Expect a law suit any minute now.

    But before the rational among us are swayed by the overzealous, let's look at the facts as reported by the NYT.

    The numbers:

    While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials.

    I don't know about you, but I feel safer knowing that the U.S. government is monitoring leads on potential terrorists both at home and abroad. But if that bothers you, how about this:

    Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said. But they said most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime, including an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden.

    So the leads gathered by the N.S.A.'s activities have actually prevented terrorist attacks in U.S. How did this all begin?:

    What the agency calls a "special collection program" began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, as it looked for new tools to attack terrorism. The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, they said.

    In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said.

    So the N.S.A. actually decided that it was acceptable to look into people that were tied, even indirectly, to al Qaeda operatives captured by the C.I.A.? How dare they! More:

    Since 2002, the agency has been conducting some warrantless eavesdropping on people in the United States who are linked, even if indirectly, to suspected terrorists through the chain of phone numbers and e-mail addresses, according to several officials who know of the operation. Under the special program, the agency monitors their international communications, the officials said. The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan.
    The report goes on to explain that a warrant is necessary to monitor a phone call from someone in New York to, say, someone in California.

    So it seems the N.S.A. took action after 9/11 that preemtively searched for terrorists before they decided to fly airplanes into buildings...again. The NYT report even acknowledges criticism of the N.S.A. from the 9/11 Commission (the liberal gold stamp, by way) of the agency prior to 9/11:

    After the Sept. 11 attacks, though, the United States intelligence community was criticized for being too risk-averse. The National Security Agency was even cited by the independent 9/11 Commission for adhering to self-imposed rules that were stricter than those set by federal law.

    "Damned if you do, and damned if you don't" seems to fit this situation well. Intelligence agencies, the C.I.A. in particular, have come under fire post 9/11 for not being able to prevent the most devastating attack on U.S. soil. But at the same time, an intelligence agency takes action, which as far as I can tell adheres to U.S. law, albeit very closely, to protect U.S. citizens from terrorism and it is painted as a violator of civil liberties. Does this make any sense?

    Much like the debate over coercive interrogation, this report is sure to raise the fundamental question of how far the U.S. government is allowed to go to protect our way of life. And should the Bush administration really be demonized for doing what it deemed necessary after 9/11 to protect the American people?

    After reading this report from the NYT, I believe that the actions taken were absolutely justified. Despite the facts, I am sure that this will not stop the rabid left from portraying this as yet another "example" of the 1984-ing of America by the Bush administration.

    #42     Dec 17, 2005
  3. Why haven't you used 'ad hominem' since I pointed out that you use it in every one of your posts?? Is it because you've realized that the majority of posters here don't speak Latin?

    Or, since you obviously do speak Latin, is it because you are too busy scuttling about, trying to pick up the disjecta membra of your credibility on these boards?

    At least coinzy and coolio are honest oafs. Those of your ilk are so much worse.

    By the way hapabuoy... did you notice that even though I pointed out that I don't like coinzy or coolio, and that I don't like the things they do, I didn't suggest that the state put them to death?

    Did you like that?
    #43     Dec 17, 2005
  4. ^^^ Are coinzy and coolio drug traffickers?

    Thank you again, non-American, for explaining to us Americans how our security posture ought to be.

    #44     Dec 17, 2005
  5. well hapabuoy, your last act in my world was to give me a good laugh - that is actually pretty funny.

    You'll be in jail, or in hospital with a heart attack, soon enough, because whatever is broken inside you will eventually lead to it. I hope your doctor is, by some freak coincidence, one of the pre-med guys I got high with all those years ago.

    On ignore. First time in 3+ years. Not even coolio or coinzy warranted this, but there is clearly no point in trying to engage you in debate. The only solution you have for any problem you encounter seems to be murder or coercion. Say!! Which other groups have traditionally relied upon these techniques?? Hmmm...

    Here, I'll post your reply for you


    hapabuoys response to this post:

    'That's right, just stick your head in the sand and pretend that everything's okay. Figured you'd respond with denial.

    Stay up in Canada where the cold prevents you from getting out of the house and actually doing anything.
    #45     Dec 17, 2005
  6. Please be careful. You're really starting to sound alot like a certain creature. From years of fighting with it, you've picked up its tactics on how to best annoy the people with whom you disagree.



    :eek: :eek: :eek:
    #46     Dec 17, 2005
  7. ^^^If coolio and coinzy aren't drug traffickers, then they're excluded from the subject, aren't they? Honest guy that you are, surely you'll admit that, won't you? Probably not, as you've misrepresented this from the beginning...aw well..

    Anyhow, since you obviously want to be an American so badly that you feel obligated to lecture us on how we should go about protecting ourselves, please enjoy the following:

    U.S. Citizenship For Canadians

    -Why Should You Read This Report ?
    -What Is A U.S. Citizen ?
    -Advantages Of Citizenship
    -Questionnaire To Determine U.S. Citizenship
    -Can I Be A Dual Citizen ?
    -Do You Give Up U.S. Citizenship When You Become A Canadian ?
    -The Different Ways To Become A Citizen
    -Requirements For Naturalization
    -Procedures For Naturalization
    -Citizenship From Citizen Parent When Born Outside The U.S. (Table)
    -My Grandparent Was A Citizen---Does This Help Me?
    -U.S. Citizenship Impact On Personal Income Tax
    -Do I Need A Lawyer ?

    #47     Dec 17, 2005
  8. Shame on you, RM. I'm giving you a pass on that because it's obvious you still have lingering discontent over the drug dealers thread.

    Besides, if traderNik REALLY means it this time and is going to ignore me, it will all be water under the bridge.
    #48     Dec 17, 2005
  9. In the spirit of the "winter holiday", let's all try to get along. I fully understand the objections to warrantless monitoring, just as I understand the unease some feel over coercive questioning of terrorist suspects. Personally, I feel the warrantless monitoring was appropriate, given the exigent circumstances, the extreme risk and the severely limited nature of the program. In addition, I feel that the government has a duty to detain those who are captured fighting on behalf of al qaeda against our troops. What are the alternatives? Turn them loose to kill again? Execute them? As for coercive questioning, that is a tough issue, largely because of the possibility of sweeping up some innocents with the stone killers.

    But let's be realistic about what is "torture." The Geneva Conventions are not the appropriate stnadard because they were designed for conventional WW II type warfare, and in any event do not by their terms apply to al qaeda. Having a dog bark at someone, slapping them a little, making them stand for hours, sleep deprivation,etc, we are not exactly talking Spanish Inquisition here. In any case, due to Senator McCain's idiotic grandstanding for the liberal media, we can forget getting any useful information from terrorist detainees now. so just shoot them and avoid the bother. Otherwise someone might get sued for mishandling a koran(provided to the terrorists by the ever helpful US taxpayer).

    Sen. McCain apparently is unconcerned by 75 year old grandmothers from Minnesota being strip searched by airport "security" however. As I said, the man must never become president. Even Hillary is preferable.
    #49     Dec 17, 2005
  10. Agree!

    Democrats and the Liberal Media in desperation, try and INVENT an Issue and the NYT is trying to HYPE a new BOOK!

    Democrats, since their CUT and RUN on Iraq got no traction, they are looking to sabotage the effort to prevent more Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.
    #50     Dec 17, 2005