Gumby

Just a little dust stirring up; but see the article here about the NSA eavesdropping on US Citizens conversations and note the date;

MARCH 2000.

http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm
Bush was elected in Nov 2000. And this kind of thing has been going on for a long time, even before 2000. For all these politicians to come out of the woodwork and complain this is something new is really hypocritical. They have all known about it for a LONG LONG TIME.

If it was on 60 minutes; I am pretty sure that wouldn't be classified by most americans as "secret".


The only question left is: IS IT ILLEGAL?

Point 1: It is only intercepting conversations that occur INTERNATIONALLY. I think that does make a difference in relation to a war with an non-domestic enemy.

Point 2: (If you believe the Bush administration - which most of you dont) is that it is only done for those on the identified Terrorist Watch list and others who have been identified as associated with Al Qaida, but cannot be arrested.


Well; I personnally think there should probably be some more authorizing legislation than what has been used; BUT IT SHOULD IN NO WAY BE STOPPED.


I think you also have to look to results. Can you name any one person, who is NOT a terrorist, who has been indicted/charged with a crime or otherwise harmed as a result of this program?

We can name a whole lot of people who were harmed by the Clinton use of the IRS to target their opponents in civil court cases & target media opponents with harassment. The clinton's clearly used FBI background files to identify "PERSONAL LIVES" of political opponents and take them out in the following election cycles.

These SELF-SERVING abuses of power garner nothing but excusals. But the "accusation" of an abuse of power IN DEFENSE OF AMERICA and its citizens with no single named victim is somehow a constitutional violation and needs to be stopped immediatelly or something.

Harry Boy

How do we spy on our enemy's?

Or do we?

Patters

Bush broke the law by spying on Americans without any legal basis for doing so. He is quickly trying to come up with one, but even a lot of Republicans aren't convinced. Those who defend Bush are defending a tactic normally seen in a dictatorship. There is no justification for ordering wiretaps without any legal basis for doing so, and from what Gonzales is saying, it appears he's trying to fabricate a legal basis, but doesn't have much to go on. This is the first offense by Bush that I think is truly criminal, and extremely, extremely dangerous to freedom and democracy at home.

PatsWickedPissah

Let me again give thanks that George W. Bush is preesident and looking out for the welfare of my family. John Forbes Kerry chastizing terrorists and failing Global Tests would be the antithethis of what a leader should do in wartime.

Imagine if these effete, limp appendaged whiners in the press, scared of boogeyman Bush were around when Lincoln took his executive action or during the horrific daily casualties of WWII. We'd be speaking German or Japanese with a Southern drawl.

Patters

Pissah, yes, Bush is looking out for your family by breaking the law. Too bad you're so afraid that you no longer care about our Constitution. You would have been one of those who defended Roosevelt for imprisoning Japanese Americans during WWII. You would have been one of those who defended Nixon for launching illegal attacks inside Cambodia. Too bad fear has cost you your principles. Sooner or later that lack of principle could cost you your freedom.

Harry Boy

The Democrat Dingobats would love to get rid of all security, they would like the Patriot Act demolished, that is the liberal way, "if it feels good do it" they hate "discipline" they hate "law and order".

The Democrats want to eliminate the tools America uses to "PROTECT" America.

The Democrats want to give all the "Muslim Terrorist Suspects" in our country their "civil liberties" they want the constitution to protect our enem'ys, the Muslim Terrorist will use our freedoms, they will use our constitution then when our freedoms have helped them prepare to attack they will blow many of the same blubbering democrats to kingdom come.

Then after the Horse has got out, the idiot democrats will want to know why Bush didn't lock the barn door.

God Bless The President Of The United States Of America, George W Bush.

Patters

It's times like this that I miss people like JoeSixPat and F.B.N., two conservatives who I think would be concerned about Bush's Nixonian efforts. The issue here is not wiretaps; the issue is assuming the President has some kind of superlegal authority to authorize wiretaps without the backing of legislation or the courts. There are secret courts already in place that are designed for national security purposes where wiretaps can be obtained in a matter of hours. I read the other day that since these courts have been established, only 4 out of 15,000 requests for wiretaps have been refused.

Are there any true conservatives in this forum who believe our President is bound by the law? There are certainly a number of conservative Republicans (such as Lindsay Graham) who have already come forward and expressed alarm at this development. But, Harry, boy, you and Condi have an unhealthy love for Mr. Bush.

wistahpatsfan

Some in this country have given into their fears, that is clear. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution is the most at rist of the Bill of Rights right now. You can't justify trampling the Constitution for the sake of "feeling safer". Others have justified circumventing our sacred document for increasing tax revenue, getting guns off the street, allowing business to perform or trade with "more efficiency", or committing acts of war without the consent of the People. It doesn't matter how you desecrate the document or why. A nation that doesn't obey it's own laws is doomed and will be unrecognizable in very short time.

The government has shown its inherent evil again in the form of this administration's expliotation of its people's fear of an outside threat. It's the oldest trick in the book and we have to be vigilant against the threat from within as well as those from without. Wiretapping is illegal without a warrant, whether the DOJ says it is or not. I hope this gets to the US Supreme Court SOON.

mikey

I am surprised that you are for big government's unfettered intrusion into ordinary American's life because New Hampshire's slogan is "live free or die".

There is no true freedom is there is someone is listening to your phone conversation or reading your mails.

I am not against the government spying on Americans if there is check and balance.

.

Gumby

I am not sure LEGALLY; you can call eavesdropping on OPEN AIR transmissions of cell and satellite signals in INTERNATIONAL AIRSPACE as a "wiretap". I could also make an argument that if you are talking on a cell phone you should not have an expectation of privacy.


I think I as a conservative DO HAVE CONCERNS about the constitution and Bill of Rights.

BUT YOU ARE IGNORING MY LINK AND WHOLE POINT OF THE ORIGINAL POST:

You cant accuse G.W. Bush of NIXONIAN EFFORTS if every thing he is doing has been done before under previous administrations and was all well and good then. Why is it bad now; just cause there is a Republican in charge?????

Just cause they are using the system to catch terrorists instead of catching Republicans holding political strategy sessions in Florida?????

AGAIN GIVE ME ONE INSTANCE of anyones rights being violated WHO IS NOT A TERRORIST or NOT AN FOREIGNER????? And if they aren't an American and arent on our soil WHY DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM RIGHTS TO KILL OTHER AMERICANS????

I did say I would like to see more legislative action to clarify procedures and limits. But NOTE; that is not what anyone is saying. Specter, Reid, Pelosi are all saying 'oh we have to find what is wrong and stop it'. They aren't saying WE NEED TO KEEP DOING THIS SO WE NEED TO DISCUSS THE RULES FOR HOW IT SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE IMPLEMENTED. The second is constructive criticism; the first is just political grandstanding.