Constructive gadfly

The site overwhelmingly is on the side of Bush’s approach to spying at home. Echoing fear-mongers across the nation on the spy issue, there is little room for debate. If we don’t go along with the manner in which the CIA and NSA gather evidence the following is shouted out:

            Listening in on terrorists will prevent another Sept. 11. [as though helter-skelter listening in on tens of thousands of citizens will defy the huge odds]

            Blocking this espionage would undercut the war on terror. [I thought the war on terror was in Iraq and we’re not apparently doing too well even there listening in on insurgents]

            Listening in is essential to our national security, according to Bush. He doesn’t even bother to add the end justifies the means. [I thought the development of democracy in the Middle East was the essence of the war on terrorism]

            Can’t fool around with red-tape and allow the warm tip to grow cold.[who are they kidding here? — you mean they are that stupid to listen in without taping the conversations]

            Opposing monitoring at a fearful time when vigilance should be at a high level of alert is irresponsible. [Like letting sharp-pointed scissors and not checking cargo on airplanes, huh]

            Terrorists don’t play by the rules, so why should we?[the high and mighty should stoop to their miserable level]

            Senators are more concerned over civil rights than saving lives and weaken defense.[You said that I didn’t]

            The president is the only elected official sworn to protect citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic.[therefore the right to violate the law]


Comments (Page 1)
6 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Dec 23, 2005
Listening in on terrorists will prevent another Sept. 11. [as though helter-skelter listening in on tens of thousands of citizens will defy the huge odds]


Steve - we are talking about roughly one wiretap per month, not the "helter-skelter listening in on tens of thousands of citizens" - get real. The taps have apparently been highly targeted, in part for the very reason you cite.

Can’t fool around with red-tape and allow the warm tip to grow cold.[who are they kidding here? — you mean they are that stupid to listen in without taping the conversations]


This actually is an issue - sometimes time can be of the essence, and you're smart enough to know that "taping" is not the issue.

I disagree that there is no room for debate. I'm in favor of an open discussion of the policy's merits and risks. There's no question that there is potential for "abuse," but the likelihood of that occurring in this context seems very low. The use of surveillance for political leverage or advantage over "enemies" (a la Hoover, Nixon) is a bigger concern, to me, anyway.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Dec 23, 2005
how much the world has changed. conservatives were once so steadfastly vigilant in defense of personal liberty, so fiercely opposed to anything which might possibly--even unintentionally--be favorable to creeping governmental authoritarianism by interfering with the balance of powers.

now they seem to welcome it.
on Dec 23, 2005

I don't think conservatives are gung-ho monitoring domestic terrorism suspects, we simply aren't spazzing out about it like some on the left are.

If a terrorist in Afghanistan is calling someone in the US, I want my government knowing about it.

on Dec 23, 2005
Since when was Iraq the Alpha & Omega of the War on Terror? Just because it has become the epicenter does not mean Iraq is all there is to it.

No one said anything about listening in on everyone, that would be a waste of time. However, listening in on those who have already been identified as a threat makes perfect sense.

How do you "tape conversations" without listening in on them. Your circular logic is a bit dizzying there. ;~D

No one is suggesting that we give up our Constitutional rights in fighting against those who have declared war against us. On the other hand, if members of the groups that have declared war on us insist on operating within our borders, there is no reason to grand them anymore rights than we grant out enemies overseas.
on Dec 23, 2005
i always thought the attorney general's job was to enforce the law instead of actively devising strategies to undermine it.
on Dec 23, 2005

i always thought the attorney general's job was to enforce the law instead of actively devising strategies to undermine it.

Too bad that no one told Janet Reno that.

on Dec 23, 2005
Maybe I should get one of those "phone call listening" jobs. I am kind of nosey by nature.
...I'd probably get stuck listening to some vapid teenager talking about her prom date or hairstyle.
on Dec 23, 2005
Why is Bush telling us that warrants are required at the same time he is spying on Americans without the warrant he said are required and being used? There have been numerous clips where Bush has said we are using the courts both in conjunction with the Patriot Act and in general. He looks like a liar and fool when he says one thing while secretly doing another. If the 1978 law that allows wire taps needs updating to be effective to protect this country, WHY has Bush not requested changes to that law?

This is just another way in which Bush and Cheney have increased the strength of the Executive and weaken both the legislative and judicial branches of the federal Government. WE are closer to a Dictatorship today then ever in our history.
on Dec 23, 2005
This is just another way in which Bush and Cheney have increased the strength of the Executive and weaken both the legislative and judicial branches of the federal Government. WE are closer to a Dictatorship today then ever in our history.


And you still live in this country because? I mean if you think it's that bad, why not leave?
on Dec 23, 2005
What needs to happen is to change the leadership to people that respect our laws and follow policies that benefit the majority not just the fat cats! The vast majority of Americans are unhappy with the policies we are following. Sounds like Bush, Cheney and the conservative leadership in Congress needs to be changed!
on Dec 23, 2005
Leave it to Gene to take this out into left field.

kingbee -

Your sweeping generalizations are just laziness. I'd like to know how you'd like us to protect ourselves from foreign terrorists using in-country contacts (who may be or appear to be legal citizens or just be here on valid or faked visas) to organize another 9/11 type of attack. What would be acceptable to you? Would you pay any attention to the people who have been active in doing so and consider them experts or would you assume anyone with knowledge in this are is not to be trusted?

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Dec 23, 2005
Daiwa

By using the 1978 law and not violating our laws and Constitution. If the 1978 law needs to be updated to better protect this country, why did Bush not request such a change? It was just easier for him to ignore our laws and Constitution.
on Dec 23, 2005
Why is Bush telling us that warrants are required at the same time he is spying on Americans without the warrant he said are required and being used? There have been numerous clips where Bush has said we are using the courts both in conjunction with the Patriot Act and in general. He looks like a liar and fool when he says one thing while secretly doing another. If the 1978 law that allows wire taps needs updating to be effective to protect this country, WHY has Bush not requested changes to that law?


I "asked" before for proof on this. That he did indeed in fact target Americans for wiretaps and that he did not get the warrents after th 72 time frame. Which if you actually read FISA from 1978. He can order them without warrents for up to 1 year as long as they do not involve taping conversations of Americans. Anyway, I asked for it before, now I'm going to demand the proof. Either show it or find a different drum to beat.
on Dec 23, 2005
how much the world has changed. conservatives were once so steadfastly vigilant in defense of personal liberty

I really don't think the majority of true conservatives support this type of government power, I believe it is only some users at JU who feel anything less then toeing the line to meet Bush Administration policy is problematic.
on Dec 23, 2005

how much the world has changed. conservatives were once so steadfastly vigilant in defense of personal liberty

I really don't think the majority of true conservatives support this type of government power, I believe it is only some users at JU who feel anything less then toeing the line to meet Bush Administration policy is problematic.

I believe that while conservatives do change, unfortunately, liberals never do.  hate, once embraced, is their only solace.

6 Pages1 2 3  Last