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 2)
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Dec 23, 2005
drmiler

Bush has admitted he DID NOT GET WARRANTS EVER! WHAT BETTER PROOF DO YOU WANT? DO YOU NOT BELIEVE YOUR PRESIDENT?
on Dec 23, 2005
Bush has admitted he DID NOT GET WARRANTS EVER! WHAT BETTER PROOF DO YOU WANT? DO YOU NOT BELIEVE YOUR PRESIDENT?


WHERE? Show me the quote! I believe what he says but not when it comes just from your lips.
on Dec 23, 2005
Bush has been on National TV starting last Saturday. His Radio broadcast Saturday which was also on TV was the first time he admitted allowing the NSA to wire tap without court orders. Cheney has also defended the Bush decision to wire tap WITHOUT warrants.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17603112-2,00.html?from=rss

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512210315dec21,1,3695230.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctr
on Dec 23, 2005
Drmiler

Is that good enough. You can go to Google and get LOTS MORE you idiot!
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.


Hey, Def -

The world has changed, probably forever. I don't like the notion of 1984(the book)-style surveillance any more than I ever did and I certainly remain "steadfastly vigilant in defense of personal liberty." That is not exactly what we're talking about here, however. As soon as I engage in contact with terrorist organizations or individual terrorists, intentionally or otherwise, I place that liberty, mine and yours, at risk. If it is true that the administration could easily have covered those taps with an after-the-fact request for authorization, I think they should have. In that sense, I disagree with the way it was handled (I'd call a technical foul), but I don't object to the fact that the Feds were paying attention. I also agree that we can't just leave the authority open-ended - the fact is the war on terrorism will never be over in the traditional sense and considering ourselves perpetually on a war-time footing leaves the door slightly ajar to subverting the authority for political gain, something we can't allow to happen. We need to have this discussion (a discussion, not just a series of sarcastic zingers) and sort out what risks we as a country are willing to take.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Dec 23, 2005
Daiwa

You have a point. I would have less of a problem with this process if I were sure this type of surveillance would ONLY be used to protect us from terrorism. However, when it becomes routine, how easy it would be to use it for control. There are many people that believed J. Edger Hoover had secret files on many important people and he used that information to keep people off his back and allow him to act freely. That is dangerous and I believe with people like Cheney there would be a temptation to misuse this process.
on Dec 23, 2005
[Picks self up off floor]

Gene -

I'm a bit plussed - a serious reply, one that I completely agree with (well, almost completely - close enough). Swash my buckles, hell has frozen over. Or maybe it's just the season.

I don't believe this type of surveillance has become "routine" - the numbers are so small it would be a stretch to characterize it that way. But I agree using it for control, as I suspect you mean it, would simply be wrong, not to mention unconstitutional.

I happen to believe there is no question Hoover used what he had to 1) remain immune to criticism, 2) maintain his power and 3) to wield political influence (or more accurately, undermine anyone he considered on the wrong side of things). While there were some good things about Hoover's organizational abilities, he was an evil human being at the core. Having been given the keys to the lockbox, he was too intellectually bankrupt to resist the temptation to use for his own ends the power that had been laid in his lap. Of course, and somewhat sadly, his power and influence were in inverse proportion to the courage of those he sought to intimidate, but we should never allow that to happen again.

As for Cheney, you are probably not the most neutral of observers so your opinion of what might or might not tempt him must be taken for what it's worth. I'm less worried about him infringing my freedom than I would be Hoover were he still alive.

Cheers and Merry Christmas,
Daiwa
on Dec 23, 2005

The only President in recent times to use military force on its own citizens was Clinton.  Waco for example involved tanks for crying out loud.

Yet, suddnely the same people who were silent about the Clinton administration tossing away the constitution worry that we're "spying" on terrorist agents in our own borders?

The government isn't just randomly evesdropping. They're specifically looking at those who are in communication with known terrorist agents.

on Dec 23, 2005
Bush has been on National TV starting last Saturday. His Radio broadcast Saturday which was also on TV was the first time he admitted allowing the NSA to wire tap without court orders. Cheney has also defended the Bush decision to wire tap WITHOUT warrants.

Link

Link


Well this is a total waste. Second link will not let me in even after registering.The first link, did you even read it? To both the first link and your reply. HE DOES NOT NEED A WARRENT to wiretap according to FISA. Only if the wiretap last longer than 72 hours. Unless you can show me that he ran the taps on the same person longer than 72 hours your arguement falls apart. Because he has not said that. So "now" who's the idiot?
on Dec 23, 2005
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.


Fair enough

now they seem to welcome it.
Sure, seems that way.

If a terrorist in Afghanistan is calling someone in the US, I want my government knowing about it.
You're not alone on this; but I'd rather doubt he could be so readily defined as a terrorist unless he's stupid.
on Dec 23, 2005
I'm a "JU Conservative" and I'm not "uptight" about it.
Sometimes
I feel you don't really know what you are.
How do you "tape conversations" without listening in on them. Your circular logic is a bit dizzying there. ;~D
Because the secret court allows it or without one they are not going to listen for 72 hours without at least taking notes and if they don't then there's nothing there and indeed a waste of time.

who have already been identified as a threat makes perfect sense.

No, they should be arrested.

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.
Once again, I enjoy your satire! I can visulize these agents listening in on teenage chat and wishing they could be out in the field tracking down terrorists.


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?

It might disturb their love for double-speak.

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.
You could be right.
on Dec 23, 2005

Just so we're clear on what the Bush position is (Whether you agree with it or not is a different issue)

Bush believes that the Sept 13, 2001 resolution was effectively a declaration of war and that as part of the executive branch's war powers under the constitution the President has the power to do as he sees fit to fight that war even if it means surveilence within the country.

It's worth remembering the kinds of things the President Lincoln did during the civil war.  Similarly, Wilson's actions in World War I to Americans (protesters were jailed for protesting) as well as Roosevelt's interning of American citizens in World War II.

The point being that the historically speaking, when the US is at war, the President is given broad powers. 

 

on Dec 23, 2005
I believe that while conservatives do change, unfortunately, liberals never do. hate, once embraced, is their only solace.
you wax poetic on the dark side--hate?

I think they should have. In that sense, I disagree with the way it was handled (I'd call a technical foul), but I don't object to the fact that the Feds were paying attention. I also agree that we can't just leave the authority open-ended - the fact is the war on terrorism will never be over in the traditional sense and considering ourselves perpetually on a war-time footing leaves the door slightly ajar to subverting the authority for political gain, something we can't allow to happen. We need to have this discussion (a discussion, not just a series of sarcastic zingers) and sort out what risks we as a country are willing to take.
Very well said; however when pompous correctiveness reigns, sarcasm is a tool to take the wind out.

The government isn't just randomly evesdropping. They're specifically looking at those who are in communication with known terrorist agents.

Ah, such proficiency devoutly to be wished!
The only President in recent times to use military force on its own citizens was Clinton. Waco for example involved tanks for crying out loud.
Oh, lord, I can't believe you would resort to this extraneous illustration.

As for Cheney, you are probably not the most neutral of observers so your opinion of what might or might not tempt him must be taken for what it's worth. I'm less worried about him infringing my freedom than I would be Hoover were he still alive.
Hoover, however, never took us to war on misrepresentation that Cheney still spews. But it's nice to read that you at least give COL a break once in a while.

on Dec 24, 2005
The point being that the historically speaking, when the US is at war, the President is given broad powers.
I agree, but other wars did not have the extraordinary options to spy domestically as now. Intercepting messages enroute is one thing--but not open without a court order sealed letters once mailed--but checking into e-mail and chat rooms is hardly a targeted method. Besides, you make presidents sound like unscrupulous dictators.
on Dec 25, 2005
at the same time he is spying on Americans without the warrant he said are required and being used?


Sounds to me like someone needs a mind melt. Then again, a mind melt won't help alleviate thoughts like this. Best guess it's founded in an floating arm chair where reclining minds can't see.
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last