NSA spying on US Citizens

[August]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Briefing Congressional leaders does not mean he was acting with the authority of the legislative behind him.

PD

Which returns us to the question of why, after 4 whole years, is it now suddenly a big deal.

I'd venture to say that if there was the slightest hint of actual impropriety it would have been used against Bush in the last presidential election.

"Tempest in a teapot" i believe is the proper political term for this issue.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by August

"Tempest in a teapot" i believe is the proper political term for this issue.

I wonder whether the NYTimes releasing this story to the public is also only a TIATP.

We'll see. According to Bush, someone who revealed this confidential information committed a crime. In addition, as is mentioned all over the place by now, it must've woken up and alerted a number of suspects who just became that much wiser.

[August]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I wonder whether the NYTimes releasing this story to the public is also only a TIATP.

We'll see. According to Bush, someone who revealed this confidential information committed a crime. In addition, as is mentioned all over the place by now, it must've woken up and alerted a number of suspects who just became that much wiser.

I wonder if the author of that article will still think promoting his book at the expense of national security will have been worth it.

[lesrae]

Originally Posted by August

In spite of the irepeated ncorrect spelling of "program" please note that not only was Congress involved in the process from the start, they've had 30 opportunities to put a stop to it.

Not wishing to be pedantic or OT, but programme is the correct English spelling and so the BBC tend to use it.

[Type941]

those who say color will never accept the "programme".

[U-214]

With the logic of "what if Bush's illegal actions had saved us from a terrorist attack",maybe you should consider also having videosurveillance and bugs in your houses.The terrorists would have much more trouble comunicating freely...

I thought that the condition in Israel has proven that there is no effective weapon against someone who wants to blow himself up.Of course,you can continue to follow Macchiavelli-like dogmas,like the "who cares if it's illegal as long as it might prove useful",but you can forget about the way of life you had or democracy for what matters.Are you going to get used to the sight of road blocks and Abrams tanks in the streets following the Israeli dogma too?Good luck.You 're going to need it.The fact that US hasn't been attacked since 9/11 isn't because of Bush's spying on comunications,but of a choise of them or maybe a megalomany of Laden who likes hollywood-like attacks,while a less glamorous car bomb could have much impact and be very easy to do (unless you make roadblocks and check all incoming vehicles from "suspicious" neighbourhoods like they do in Israel).

Also,instead of sacrificing your civil liberties and rights,you should ask yourselves,how did you get there in the first place and why the terrorists attacked USA and not Switzerland.Terrorists are fanatics,but nobody is born terrorist nor they are schizofrenic.

Regards

[Skybird]

"Why are you always wearing marmelade on your shoulders?"

"It keeps the pink elephants away."

"He...? But there ain't no pink elephants anywhere!"

"You see, it works!"

[Type941]

Basically, it's all about whether you think George Bush in an honest and trustworthy individual. If the answer is definate "YES" than you need not to worry about this, as the law is intended to keep you safe from those who wish to do harm.

If the answer is 'NO' than there is a bit problem, because a person who's a decieving liar can use the 'terrorism' clause to spy on eveyryone, on big corporations, and so on and on, and do justice as they please; and when matters become of public record their answer will be the same: we are doing this to protect you and we already prevented many attacks.

It's very tough. Apparently half of the US voted for BUSH precisely because they viewed him as a moral human being, while the other half not necessarily questioned his morality - it was his competency they weren't happy about. So I reckon it's not all that awful and that he's a good person at the end of the day, only if misguided by his warmonging members of the adminstrations. I hope he indeed holds up to his democracy principles. Otherwise, there's no hope. 2008 election candidates at this stage all look hoaky. May be Baroc O'Bama for president? The guy can talk...

[U-214]

Basically, it's all about whether you think George Bush in an honest and trustworthy individual

I think it's not as simple as that.It's also about whether someone is above the law just because he is in position of power or not.Laws exists exactly for that,to remove the subjective factor from the equation.

I really can't understand why Bush authorized this illegal spying,while the various agencies could have obtained the permission anyway,by legally asking it from a judge.Which judge would refuse to intercept a subject that has "links with terrorists" as bush said?Or judges are also suspicious of treason or collaborating with the terrorists so they would alert he terrorists?Unless,their motives were less noble,such as not to be presentable before a judge...Where there is smoke,there is fire.

[U-214]

P.S:The separation of the executive and judicial branch exists in all democracies for a specific purpose.If Bush wants to substitute the judge and issue himself the orders on who "merits" to be intercepted and who doesn't,at least,he should drop the theatre and "patriot" acts,declare martial law and be over with it.But you can't go out making the "hero" ,the paladin of democracy,while at the same time you have decided to violate basic principles of the democratic political system since you have the power to hide what you do and think that you know best what's good.

Maybe he got used to bypassing laws with lies since his presentation of his "hard proof" evidence of the Iraqui WMD in the UN.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by U-214

With the logic of "what if Bush's illegal actions

Stop right there. Again, please clarify what was illegal?

But let's assume so for argument's sake and continue.....

had saved us from a terrorist attack",maybe you should consider also having video surveillance and bugs in your houses.The terrorists would have much more trouble comunicating freely...

Everything has its limits and its consequences. That's true in everything in life. Get used to it. That is not to say that anyone should automatically be absolved from illegalities but sometimes being a civilized human being calls for breaking rules, not adhering to them.

I thought that the condition in Israel

Weeeeeeeeeeeeee. Look at him jump! :hmm:

has proven that there is no effective weapon against someone who wants to blow himself up.

Quite the contrary! The security fence has reduced the cases of terrorist attacks tremendously and saved Israel from dozens of homocide bomber attempts since its inception.

Try researching before posting.

And what is your point anyway? That nothing can stop terrorists? You should try reading daily newspapers before posting, too.

Of course,you can continue to follow Macchiavelli-like dogmas,like the "who cares if it's illegal as long as it might prove useful",

But I do care and I did not say I don't. Go ahead and quote where I said I don't care.

but you can forget about the way of life you had or democracy for what matters.Are you going to get used to the sight of road blocks and Abrams tanks in the streets following the Israeli dogma too?Good luck.You 're going to need it.The fact that US hasn't been attacked since 9/11 isn't because of Bush's spying on comunications,but of a choise of them or maybe a megalomany of Laden who likes hollywood-like attacks,while a less glamorous car bomb could have much impact and be very easy to do (unless you make roadblocks and check all incoming vehicles from "suspicious" neighbourhoods like they do in Israel).

Enjoy your safe Utopia...........................................

Also,instead of sacrificing your civil liberties and rights,you should ask yourselves,how did you get there in the first place and why the terrorists attacked USA and not Switzerland.Terrorists are fanatics,but nobody is born terrorist nor they are schizofrenic.

The answer is Islam and leave schizos out of this.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Type941

Basically, it's all about whether you think George Bush in an honest and trustworthy individual.

I don't trust politicians as a rule. Period. This has nothing unique to do with George Bush except those of you who insist that he can never do right no matter what.

If the answer is definate "YES" than you need not to worry about this, as the law is intended to keep you safe from those who wish to do harm.

If the answer is 'NO' than there is a bit problem, because a person who's a decieving liar

There is a difference between not trusting someone with eyes wide shut and accusing them in advance of being a "deceiving liar".

can use the 'terrorism' clause to spy on eveyryone, on big corporations, and so on and on, and do justice as they please;

Are you now make this your new baseless accusation? Or are you just letting your Hollywood movie experience imagination run wild?

and when matters become of public record their answer will be the same: we are doing this to protect you and we already prevented many attacks.

What if it's true? And you know otherwise. Please, let us in on your best kept secrets.

It's very tough. Apparently half of the US voted for BUSH precisely because they viewed him as a moral human being, while the other half not necessarily questioned his morality - it was his competency they weren't happy about.

So much jibberish in one sentence.

What about so many of us who voted for the better candidate or the lesser of two evils? What polls do you based your assumptions on that is was a 50/50 moral/immoral based election? Such baseless rantings? Get real!

So I reckon it's not all that awful and that he's a good person at the end of the day, only if misguided by his warmonging members of the adminstrations.

Did we ever get the feeling that your highly opinionated?

Does somebody here really have to bother pasting all the pre and post 9/11 quotes from all th major Democratic party higher ups (Mr. & Mrs. Clinton, Albright, Rockefeller, Kerry, et al) that threatened and eve demanded military action against Iraq?

I hope he indeed holds up to his democracy principles. Otherwise, there's no hope. 2008 election candidates at this stage all look hoaky. May be Baroc O'Bama for president? The guy can talk...

But can he act? :hmm:

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by August

I wonder if the author of that article will still think promoting his book at the expense of national security will have been worth it.

I would think the badies use some sort of security protocol anyway because of the chances of interception.

[U-214]

By Avon Lady:

Stop right there.

Yes madam!We will cut our sentences as you wish.Syntax has no meaning.

Again, please clarify what was illegal?

In most democracies that i know,there is required judicial approval to intercept comunications of citizens.This seems to be the case in USA too:

American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4538286.stm

If Bush decides to bypass courts by giving the orders,i think that's why this news finished in the first page of all newspapers worldwide.If it was all normal what's all the fuss about it?And i repeat again.If Bush was doing nothing wrong on chosing who to spy,why didn't he follow the normal procedure of getting the judges to do their job?

But let's assume so for argument's sake and continue.....

You will forgive me,but i don't continue a dialogue with people that either don't know syntax or try to manipulate a text to their pleasure in order to facilitate their positions.

I also think that your replies show clearly you are quite biased in certain matters that have to do with Islam and Israel.

So i remain in my Utopia and leave you in your safe heaven.

Regards

P.S:Americans : You can start building the security fence.And Bush will choose who is to be left out

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by Skybird

"Why are you always wearing marmelade on your shoulders?"

"It keeps the pink elephants away."

"He...? But there ain't no pink elephants anywhere!"

"You see, it works!"

Have you ever seen the Simspsons episode with the bear patrol? It demonstrates America's reaction to this concept. The scene goes about like this :

Lisa : This whole thing is pointless, it's like saying this rock keeps the tigers away!

Homer : How does it work?

Lisa : It doesn't! There just aren't any tigers around!

Homer : Lisa, I'll give you five dollars for that rock.