NSA spying on US Citizens

Oh no, that Bush guy is at it again. The next election should prove interesting.

[August]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Because we are toooo good to depend on other countries to help our fasist ways.

Watergate anyone?

Lets put this into comparason.

Clinton nearly impeached for having sex.. harmed: 1
Nixon resigns and nearly is impeached... harmed: A party
Bush commits this serious violation of the law.. Harmed: A country

Interesting take, but:

Clinton was nearly impeached for perjury not having sex. That arguably harmed the Democratic party if you count the loss of both houses of Congress to the Republicans on his watch as well as the next two presidential terms.

Nixon did some harm to the republican party but really only for 4 years. On the other hand he got us out of a highly unpopular war started by the Democrats as well as ended the draft.

Regardless of what the NY Times is saying, Bush hasn't violated the law and that extra survellance (which was instituted with the knowledge of Congress and the federal judiciary) has foiled several terrorist plots on our soil.

[Iceman]

Your point Skybird I agree with and is correct....Checks and Balances are what is needed or supposed to have been in place...the circumstances that rocked my country cannot be used for any"one" persons agenda.

Other side of the coin to the whole thing I think is kinda silly....why do Americans think it is such a horror ..."O how dare they easedrop on an American Citizen" but it is ok to listen in on ALL other countries conversations?.....what's good for the goose is ok with me....

One who does not break the law has nothing to fear....Checks and Balances again are key here.


Following a recent conversation between Iceman and his children....

"Hi dad...
Hi sweetie....
Hows your day going?....
O.K.....Just putting up with the smell of dog poop in this customers backyard while I am installing there phone/internet/and tv service....
That's gross dad....
Yea but dad does it because he loves you guys.
We love you dad...
I love you too sweetie....I'll see you when I get home....
OK daddy....buckle up....
I always do sweetie...bye bye
Bye..."

Big national security threat here....lol.

[Torpedo Fodder]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Because we are toooo good to depend on other countries to help our fasist ways.

Well you did get Britain and Australia to follow you into your imperialist fascist invasion of Iraq .

[Zachstar]

To get these guys they should have issued warrants. Its in the bill of rights!

AS for these plots? What was it that made them where they had to have instant ability to spy? If they were suspected terrorists then it should have been a run to get the warrant then back to get the evidence.

Ya they may have gotten some terrorists. Hmmm im bored how about we go find some dirt on the anti-war people? Oh and lets spy on the Democrats! Hey because we prefer this oil company to this one lets gather info and secretly sell it to the one we like.

You cant guarantee me this will not happen without warants PERIOD These people can not be trusted with our country any longer.

Unless you get an amendment stiking down this amendment then the constitution is the final law.

This is Bush thinking he was above the law
Just as Nixon did

[MadMike]

Perhaps once the grandstanding politicians and left wing nutcases like Ted Kennedy have their say, the facts will speak for themselves. Have any of you bothered to read the NSA charter or federal laws pertaining to NSA's mission?

Yours, Mike

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The path to arbitrariness is paved with good intentions.

In principle there must not be anything bad in preemptive monitoring. But there needs to be a countercontrolling instance making sure this monitoring gremium gets not abused; and the countercontrolling gremium itself also needs to be beyond doubt of having different interests. A basic principle of every democratic system: countercontrol. Bypassing it must be followed by penalty. Practices must be correctly labelled. Rules must be followed. No matter what the intention is.

You could really sum this up by the phrase a system of checks and balances. And as you said, this is a fundamental principle of every democratic system.

[August]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

To get these guys they should have issued warrants. Its in the bill of rights!

AS for these plots? What was it that made them where they had to have instant ability to spy? If they were suspected terrorists then it should have been a run to get the warrant then back to get the evidence.

Ya they may have gotten some terrorists. Hmmm im bored how about we go find some dirt on the anti-war people? Oh and lets spy on the Democrats! Hey because we prefer this oil company to this one lets gather info and secretly sell it to the one we like.

You cant guarantee me this will not happen without warants PERIOD These people can not be trusted with our country any longer.

Unless you get an amendment stiking down this amendment then the constitution is the final law.

This is Bush thinking he was above the law
Just as Nixon did

Must be nice to see things so black and white.

Seriously, if you dismiss the possibility they foiled some terrorist plots and saved some lives, then I reject your "hmm, i'm bored" possibilities as well. I'm talking about things that did happen, you're talking about things that might happen, but only if a whole lot of other things happen as well.

Please read this carefully: It. was. NOT. done. in. secret!

Congressional leaders from BOTH parties knew about it beforehand as did the controlling judiciary, as well as various other law enforcement and national security agencies who are required to obey the law and report violations of said laws.

Besides, your Nixon analogy doesn't work as Tricky Dick never would, or could, have signed a presidential order to bug the Watergate. Executive orders are written official documents that become a part of the permanent national record. It'd be like a bank robber mailing his plans to the cops beforehand. Because what he was doing was illegal, Nixon went unofficially through intermediaries, and being the amateurs they were, bungled the job and got caught.

Secondly, Nixon did what he did for pure personal gain. Bush did what he did without personal gain and apparently a fair amount of risk to his legacy, in order to protect the country against its enemies. Can't you see the difference between the two?

You do understand that we are in a war right? The people we're fighting will continue to use our own technology and laws against us to kill as many of our people as possible. I say that any president who wouldn't do whatever he could to keep another 9-11 from happening again would be the real criminal.

[The Avon Lady]

I have yet to see a substansive explanation of exactly what was illegal in these actions.

All very vague, for the moment.

In general, I agree with August, as long as strong checks and balances are in place. Yes, all hard to ascertain.

This isn't being done for fun or to find out who the Democrats are talking about over their mobile phones as their next presidential candidate.

There are lots of very bad people out there - and I'm not talking about New Jersey drivers.

[Godalmighty83]

preserving freedom by removing it? no thanks.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Godalmighty83

preserving freedom by removing it? no thanks.

Nice cliche.

But that's all it is - at least under present circumstances as we know them.

[The Avon Lady]

Here's a simple question to the reactionary Bush-bashers among you:

Had an attack that could have been prevented succeeded because these covert efforts wouldn't have taken place and thousands of people would have been killed, would you have been the first ones to stand up for the Bush administration and proclaim what a great job he's doing defending the US and everyone's civil liberties?

Nuts.

[August]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Here's a simple question to the reactionary Bush-bashers among you:

Had an attack that could have been prevented succeeded because these covert efforts wouldn't have taken place and thousands of people would have been killed, would you have been the first ones to stand up for the Bush administration and proclaim what a great job he's doing defending the US and everyone's civil liberties?

Nuts.

Good luck getting an answer to that AV.

[The Avon Lady]

I will just add that, though I did vote for Bush in the last election, I did so as the choice between the "lesser of two evils", so to speak. I continue to be unimpressed by his overall performance but this issue will not add or detract from my current opinion, unless some super illegality or goof-up was definitely involved.

[Bort]

Well, so much for your vast left wing media consipracy, August, Bushy has admitted it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4538286.stm
Also, If a terrorist attack occured and Bush had done everything LEGAL in his power to prevent it, I would not criticize him. You know there is such a thing as POLICE WORK that involves all of those pesky COURTS and RIGHTS. It seems to me all of this spying is an excuse to be lazy and arbitrary, not to protect the US by doing the job right.