Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties

Posted by: Vi

Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/17/05 09:52 PM

What follows has political content. For those of you who don't like to discuss political things, this is to let you know you might not want to get involved.

FROM CNN:

This story doesn't include that today Bush publicly admitted authorizing what the story talks about, but it does address the basic issues, the impact on the senate's voting in regards to the Patriot Act and a few high-up officials feelings about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/16/bush.nsa/index.html


This next article is an updated version of the last article. It includes Bush admitting the program exists.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/index.html


Also of note, the CNN quickvote poll:

Should the government have been given the authority to spy on Americans without warrants after the 9/11attacks?

70% of the responders so far have said "NO".
30% of the responders so far have said, "Yes".
187,602 people have responded up to 11:17 AM. By 1:38 pm the percentages were the same and 201668 had voted.


From MY YAHOO:

This story, from Reuters, says what the above stories say, except it seems to emphasize the republican side more than it does the actual issues.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20051217/pl_nm/security_patriot_dc_16


This story frm AP seems more in line with public reaction:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

It also has a statement that's incongruous to the events. Apparently this eavesdropping was started shortly after 911, yet the story says, "He said it is designed in part to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas."

The 911 commission didn't draw up any resolutions (from the sounds of it) until well after the orders were originally given. It didn't even exist at the time.

I also find the following quote from Senator Feingold very interesting. Feingold said it was "absurd" that Bush said he relied on his inherent power as president to authorize the wiretaps.

"If that's true, he doesn't need the Patriot Act because he can just make it up as he goes along. I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Feingold told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.


This next one is also from the AP, but focuses on the Patriot Act:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_patriot_act

Again, it seemed to dwell more on Bush's defense in wanting the act renewed. This time Senator Leahy's remark was of special interest to me:

"Fear mongering and false choices do little to advance either the security or liberty of Americans," Leahy said. "Instead of playing partisan politics and setting up false attack ads, they should join in trying to improve the law."

This is a fascinating day.

[ December 17, 2005, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: NHJackie

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/17/05 09:58 PM

Thanks for posting the articles. It is indeed tempting to turn this into a political football, which is exactly what's happening. What neither "side" seems to want to admit is that this sort of invasion of privacy has been going on with the knowledge of the ferdeal government since long before Bush was around. If people are starting to be more aware of it now, that's all to the good. Maybe it will finally be stopped.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who won't agree with me. Any takers?
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/20/05 03:34 AM

The reason that this gets into a political football match is that people keep making all discussions into debates over "either/or." Either we have wiretaps or we have terrorists. Either we have liberty or we have security.

What if we have a "both/and" scenerio? We can have both liberty and security, but we may have to look at things differently. I agree that illegal searches and whatnot have been around for a very long time. It doesn't mean we shouldn't protest each and every time we hear about it and hold up a greater ideal.

Perhaps if we begin with a values and needs discussion prior to deciding what to do, we could actually come to a consensus regarding what we believe is the best thing to do from where we are right now. The constitution was actually written that way -- a discussion of needs and values.

So in this case, the value is every American citizen's right to privacy. The need is safety -- a very basic need in our lives. How do we balance the two? What about organizations and corporations? What ideas do we have for privacy in groups?

Personally, my balance is more towards privacy for individuals, less privacy for organizations, corporations and the like. With that comes a responsbility. I have a responsibility to know my neighbors. I have a responsibility to dig under a person's outward appearance and words and understand who they are and what they value before I decide they are to be feared.

We can have both privacy and safety -- it's very simple and it takes work.
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/19/05 05:57 PM

Thank you NHJackie and Casey for your input. Yes, there is always a need for balance. Unfortunately this entire political system is currently out of balance.

We have now learned: Two years ago, George W. Bush went behind the back of the American people and secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to carry out surveillance of people throughout the United States. He's admitted it.

The secret presidential edict, revealed by the New York Times, allowed massive spying, surveillance of phone calls and peoples' homes without any evidence of criminal activity, and without court order. This complete violation of the Bill of Rights was ordered without congressional debate or judicial scrutiny and oversight. It was Bush’s secret, a hidden and criminal violation of peoples constitutional rights.

Bush’s secret action is a violation of federal wiretapping law, the Privacy Act and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. What remedy exists when the President violates federal law and trashes the Bill of Rights? The remedy provided by the Constitution is impeachment.

This latest bombshell follows a pattern well known by all those who are demanding that Congress defend the Constitution through impeachment. Bush used September 11 to violate the most important tenets of the US Constitution and international law. The war of aggression in Iraq, the establishment of a global network of secret prisons and torture centers, the unleashing of secret police spying on citizens and non-citizens alike, the evisceration of due process rights and the systematic lying to Congress and to the people about the reasons for the launch of the Iraq war - these constitute the essential case for impeachment.

The American people are demanding in ever greater numbers that the constitutional mechanism that holds high officials accountable for criminal activity be immediately applied. The idea promoted by some that Bush is too strong to be impeached is sheer nonsense and it defies the historical record. Richard Nixon was on the verge of being impeached in the last half of his second term and not long after, he won a landslide majority in the 1972 election. Clinton too was impeached in the second half of his second term, on the allegation of perjury, when he had an approval rating of 60%.

Today Bush’s approval rating is hovering around 40%, the majority of the people believe Congress should vote to impeach if Bush lied about the reasons for going to war, and now millions more are shocked that Bush secretly authorized the most powerful spy agency to spy on anyone it wanted too without court order or evidence of criminal wrong doing.

The Bush White House, in its very essence, is the negation of democracy. The people must not stand by and let cherished freedoms protected by the Constitution, be stripped away in secret.

What can we do: place ads in the New York Times and other newspapers, as well as radio spots, this January calling for the immediate impeachment of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others.

Volunteers and organizers are working across the country to spread the message of the grassroots movement VoteToImpeach/ImpeachBush.org

The above was written by those who believe strongly in our constitutional rights.

[ December 19, 2005, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: meredithbead

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/20/05 12:00 AM

Vi, I pasted your post in an email to a friend whom I'm seeing for dinner tonight, and it will be our topic of conversation.

We all know the above information is true, but our discourse will be on future possibilities and probabilities. I'll post tomorrow if I have anything significant to add.
Posted by: countrygirl51

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/20/05 01:44 AM

It looks like I am in the minority around this site, but I will say that I believe our President deserves our support and that he is doing a pretty good job. The liberal press has been a much bigger problem to our country's security than anything Bush might do. I watch TV and see news stories about possible targets for Al Quaeda and I think...why not just send them a photocopy of the newscast. Don't reporters think they monitor our tv programs, especially the news? Why give them more ideas on how vulnerable we are?
Personally, I am not crazy about wire-tapping phones, but ours has already been tapped by the FBI before (long story) and nothing ever came of it. Most of our personal information can be found on the internet, if someone knows how to find it. I'd rather be wire-tapped than end up dead. What good are our civil liberties when we are room temperature on a cold slab? Our very lives are at stake. Anyone who believes Al Quaeda has no plans to attack us again is delusional.
I'm getting off my soapbox now. Slice me up and put me out to dry. I don't care. I stick with my opinion.
Posted by: Louisa

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/20/05 02:35 AM

You're not a minority, Countrygirl, I agree with you. While I'm not totally in favor of wire-tapping, I'm not upset over what Bush did. I think we can be pretty sure Al Quaeda spies on us. I think we/Bush/whoever is in power needs to do whatever it takes to beat these monsters at their own game. I too think we should be supporting our President. That doesn't mean we have to agree with every single thing he did/does. Politics is a nasty business. All's fair in love and WAR and I agree with you - they plan to attack us the first chance they get.

I live two miles from a General Electric plant. (always said to be a target) and 10 minutes from a major city, Boston and Logan Airport. We live on the water with a spectacular view of the Boston skyline. I sit on my deck at night and take in the beautiful site. My husband and I watch the planes coming and going from Logan. I remember the days after 9/11 when there was no sound of the planes overhead. An eery feeling. All was not right with the world.

When I look at the familiar Boston skyline on a hot summer night and see the Prudential Building and the John Hancock Tower I am thankful it is still there. I try to imagine what it would feel like to have part of it missing like in NY with the Twin Towers. On the 4th of July, we watch the Boston Pops on TV and listen to the music and watch the people celebrating our freedom. At the end of the show, we watch the fireworks on the TV and we can see part of them from Boston from our doorway. It gives me a sense of pride.

JW can spy on whomever he has to as far as I'm concerned if it will keep that skyline the way it is and the music playing and the fireworks lighting up the sky.

There's my soabox too, Countrygirl.
Louisa
Posted by: Daisygirl

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/20/05 02:54 AM

I would be inclined to impeach President Bush if he HADN'T authorized wiretapping to protect our country and citizens. He was only doing his duty as president to protect the country. I'm very thankful to have a president who is more interested in reality than political correctness.

Daisygirl
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/20/05 04:40 AM

As mentioned in the above articles, all Bush has to do to wiretap our phones legally, when there is probable cause, is to get permission from the special court set up just for that purpose. It’s almost always granted. He has instant access to that court, if he needs it, and if justifiable, he can immediately instigate wiretaps, as long as within three days, he petitions the court for the wiretap warrants. It’s a matter of checks and balances. Checks and balances are vital to democracy. Without them we have a dictatorship. We have no freedoms, if he decides to take power that is not his and disregards our liberties guaranteed by our constitution.

We are more at risk from Al Qaeda now than we were before Bush invaded Iraq. Iraq did not attack us. Al Qaeda did. The world was behind us when we went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The world even felt sorry for us. The world turned against us, and the determination of Al Qaeda to wipe out us heathens grew when Bush invaded Iraq. Because of him the problem multiplied exponentially. We are less safe now than we have ever been before, because of G. W. Bush.

Many scholars say that Bush has broken the law. The laws we live by are recorded in the Constitution of the United States. He was elected to uphold this constitution. He swore to do so when he took office, twice. It is not up to him to take the law into his own hands. As was reported in the news:
quote:
Feingold said it was "absurd" that Bush said he relied on his inherent power as president to authorize the wiretaps.
"If that's true, he doesn't need the Patriot Act because he can just make it up as he goes along. I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Feingold told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

It is hard to trust someone who thinks he is above the law. How could I possibly think someone like that has the best interests of this country and it’s citizens at heart. The only citizens I’ve seen that he takes to heart is the corporate citizen, at the expense of the American citizen.

As I was growing up I was taught to believe that presidents were heroes, starting with George Washington, who could not tell a lie. We are a nation of good and wholesome people. But George is teaching our children that lying and cheating are okay, and that if you have enough power you can get away with anything. Is that what you want for your children?

[ December 20, 2005, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: meredithbead

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/20/05 07:15 AM

Our dinner topic tonight veered towards how many people in the US are ignorant about our Constitution and laws, and they "excuse" the President from breaking these laws because they "like" him.

I agree with you, Vi, and so does my friend. No one is above the law. If our country turns into a totalitarian dictatorship, then what exactly are we fighting for? Of course, then Al Quaeda may stop trying to destroy us, because we will have already destroyed ourselves from within.

The President is interested not in reality, but in power.
Posted by: norma

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/20/05 08:45 AM

Can the current policy of 'extraordinary rendition' be defended in any way?

Innocent people have been caught up in this web
of evil and have been tortured. A German, and a Canadian are now attempting to sue the US government because of their illegal capture, transportation and torture. Will these lawsuits now hinder the release and return of others who are innocent, and who have been mistakenly indentified as 'terrorists' ?

And for those who are not so innocent?
Does the end really justify the means ?
Or does the end become even more impossible to achieve because of the means?

I believe Americans have proven their willingness to protect their nation, and to protect others who are in jeopardy because of various evils.
But 'extraordinary rendition' is an abuse of all that the US and her people stand for. And that is a true loss to the world.

[ December 20, 2005, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: norma ]
Posted by: DJ

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/20/05 11:26 AM

The Inspector General's Act was established in 1978 specifically to limit powers of the executive branch, following the abuses of Watergate. The law does allow the president to exercise executive privilege, but he has to do it with the knowledge and sanction of Congress and the judiciary, the other two branches of government, in accordance with the Constitutional principle of checks and balances.

Pres. Bush could've done exactly what he did (i.e., order wiretapping) but following the 1978 law, and gone ahead and wiretapped. He probably would've been granted persmission by the other two branches of govt. considering the tenor of the times.

Let's face it -- the job of the National Security Agency (the secretive NSA -- and as it's fondly called by its employees "No Such Agency" -- ha!) is to wiretap. It's nothing new.

But Bush didn't do it that way. In other words, he disobeyed the law. This is the problem.

The other problem is that too many Americans don't understand the U.S. Constitution!!!! Didn't we learn in 7th grade about "checks and balances" that are supposed to prevent any one branch of government to overstep its boundaries?

The USA believes in the rule of law. Historically, we are supposed to be the ones that urge others around the world to establish laws and then to follow them. Dictators (like Saddam Hussein) don't have to follow laws. But in the United States, NO person (President included) is above the law. Because of this principle, just a few years ago we impeached President Clinton for lying under oath. 30 years ago we nearly impeached a President for breaking the law. But he quit before that could happen, and then was pardoned.

One thought about the problem of not understanding history: When we entered the war, President Bush reportedly didn't know there was a difference among Kurd, Sunni and Shiite in Iraq. Now he does.
Posted by: norma

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/20/05 06:19 PM

DJ... did George W Bush also sign PNAC ? It is my understanding that his father and brother Jeb did. If he didn't, is it possible that he was used to set the thing in motion?

[ December 20, 2005, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: norma ]
Posted by: DJ

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/21/05 12:34 AM

I don't know if he's a member, but definitely the rest of the administration is. Did they use him to further their plans? It does look that way. There are a few books about it, which I haven't read. But I heard the author of "Rise of the Vulcans" on the radio. This is about the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/21/05 04:44 AM

It's difficult to get away from fear once you feel it in your bones. We all realized, after 9/11, that the orderliness of our world was shaken. What we thought was predictable, wasn't. My step-daughter would have been in the towers, but she was ill and didn't take the train into New York. A friend who worked for Cantor-Fitzgerald had to pick up a prescription and is still alive. Another friend walked down 60 flights of stairs and survived.
We know that fear. We saw it televised over and over again. It's in our bones now. Like Louisa, we treasure what we have and we want to protect it. And many of us look to the powerful, or those who appear powerful, to protect us from the horrors that have no reason.
The only problem is that power is seductive. Even with the best intentions, it's difficult not to want to do things the way we think is right and ignore the rules because they get in the way.
And the desire to be protected by a strong man is also seductive. Heck, it's the fairy tale we all grew up with. The problem is, and most of us have realized this in our personal lives, is that no one is infallable. We all have blind spots.
We need to support each other with questions and acknowledgement. So I can easily acknowledge Mr. Bush for taking a strong stand after 9/11. The country needed someone to look to for strength and he provided it. But, I must also, as a good citizen, question the decisions he has made that go against the law, at least the spirit of the law as we know it.
I believe that calling for impeachment is too extreme right now. We don't know all the facts. We need the inquiry and to establish where the boundary was crossed. If we learned anything from the impeachment trials of Mr. Clinton, it is what a huge amount of money and time it takes to do that.
However, I am not willing to give up my liberty for a false sense of security, no matter how large my fear may be.
Posted by: Pattyann

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/21/05 12:29 PM

I find it so strange that the same president who is so forceful that we are putting American military lives on the line in Iraq to give them freedom and democracy and rights is equally forceful that he can do what he wants to take away our rights in violation of our laws and the constitution.
Posted by: First baby boomer

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/22/05 03:19 AM

I agree! I don't know why he gets away with what he does. We should get out of Iraq, and tap his phone! I didn't vote for him. Now we have to suffer with him. Interest rates are going up which will hurt the economy even more.
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/22/05 03:34 AM

A democracy is just that. We vote for who we want and then accept the person who wins. It's a messy system at best, but it is good. I had friends who were of the Republican persuasion who were very upset with Clinton because they didn't agree with him either.
Pattyann, you are right. Mr. Bush is "forceful." He is consistently that way. His worldview is one of a hierarchy with a strong leader at the top who knows what's best. He believes in his view and acts on it.
The answer is to really get to know, understand and have discussions with those who voted for Mr. Bush. And, of course, to vote every time and every where.
Posted by: Pattyann

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/21/05 04:09 PM

I'm not "upset" with Mr Bush I think he is violating the law. People voted for him for president- a president sworn to uphold the constitution- no one voted him dictator
Do you realize that anyone who calls or emails overseas can have their messages intercepted- heck we've got Canadians here-BWS on tap-
And who decides where this info goes? If you complain about taxes- does the IRS get it? Does the Fbi get files on people who protest the war in conversations?
Ours is a system that has rules- if it is so vital take it to court
Posted by: norma

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/21/05 05:33 PM

In attempting to obtain information from 'terrorists suspects' the current US administration has also given approval to the secret transportation of people to undisclosed places, where foreign police/intelligent agencies 'question' them. No legal extradition proceedings take place.

That is 'extraordinary rendition'.

It involves no form of protection
for the accused and it involves torture.

After criminals carried out the 9/11 attack,
it was rightly said that democracy was under attack. Unfortunatedly there are many ways to destroy democracy......

[ December 21, 2005, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: norma ]
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/21/05 10:40 PM

This is a good discussion. This kind of openness and honesty is what I sought when I posted this thread. I believe it is what we need if we are to keep our country as wonderful as it is.

Current stuff on the matter. It includes the resolution congress passed on Sept 14, 2001:

quote:
On Capitol Hill, the White House proposed a resolution that would give the president authority to "deter and prevent any related future acts of terrorism and aggression against the United States." Members from both parties objected that the language was too broad.

"It would have given him authority to do anything he wanted, anytime, anywhere," recalls Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore. The wording was revised.

The new version said: "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."

It almost sounds like we gave him the authority and power to get away with the illegal eavesdropping. However, Barbara Boxer clarifies it well with her statement:

quote:
"There's nothing in there that gave the president the authority to override the law," says Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. She has asked four legal scholars if they believe Bush has admitted an "impeachable offense."
You can find the details on the above in the following article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051221/ts_usatoday/skepticismtrailsbushsdefenseofdomesticspying


And this next one's got a pro and con attitude - a judge resigns because of it, and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, pushes back (with what I think is an iffy argument (considering, on the whole, this is supposed to be super top secret.)

Report: Spy court judge quits in protest
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/21/spyjudge.resigns.ap/index.html

And here's a sidebar about the Patriot Act - it's good to see that the Senate is taking this thing seriously.

Bush condemns filibuster on Patriot Act renewal
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/21/patriot.act/index.html


And then we have the bipartison request for a probe into the Bush/Cheney assertion that it was all legal.
Bipartisan call for wiretapping probe
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/20/wiretaps/index.html

quote:
Cheney said such measures were necessary because the United States needed to "aggressively go after terrorists" and that they had "saved thousands of lives."

"It is, I'm convinced, one of the reasons we haven't been attacked in the past four years," Cheney said.

Of course, he was also convinced that Iraq had WMDs!

A particularly interesting statement:

quote:
"For the last few days, I have witnessed the president, the vice president, the secretary of state and the attorney general repeatedly misrepresent the facts," Rockefeller said in a written statement.

Addtional interesting comments:

quote:
Another lawmaker who knew about the program, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, asked National Intelligence Director John Negroponte Tuesday to declassify a letter she wrote to the administration years ago expressing her "strong concerns," as well as the White House response.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, discounted the administration's contention that the program was necessary to ensure a swifter response than the FISA court would allow.

"That's why our law allows a president to go right away and apply for those warrants retroactively within 72 hours," she told CNN.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean went so far as to compare the program to "the dark days of President Nixon."

We (the people) are Americans above all else. We come in all shapes, sizes and persuasions - religious, agnostic, atheist; women and men; Republicans, Democrats, Independents, what have you. Regardless of our persuasion - and how the world now views us - we are indeed a nation of rightness and goodness. The key truth to that rightness and goodness, however, is not in blindly supporting a President who is wrong and deceitful, but in standing together, as a nation of people, and supporting the country that the President is sworn to protect. The President is not our nation; we the people are that nation. The President is but one of us whom we have chosen(?) to represent all of us. We must never succumb to blind faith in anyone, for blind faith, either believing everything or doubting everything, are two equally convenient solutions, both of which dispense with the necessity for reflection - democracy is the free exercise of that reflection.

[ December 22, 2005, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: meredithbead

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/22/05 04:41 AM

Thanks for the research, Vi. Your last paragraph says it all.
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/23/05 03:39 AM

Vi, thanks for the great research. From what I read, I believe that the President has clearly broken the law. However, we must also follow due process. My Senator, Barbara Boxer, is well into the fray, but I think it's important that we touch base with all our Senators and Congresspeople to ask for a complete, bi-partison examination.
The caution I am trying to express, is that we keep it a civilized discussion and to the point. (Drifting off to rising interest rates doesn't help.) Consistently coming back to the point that the President broke a law is important. And so are having discussions with people who don't agree with us -- those who believe that the president should do everything he can (legal or illegal) to protect us. We need to heal this divide so we can get back to being the nation we truly are "with liberty and justice for ALL."
Posted by: forenacct

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/22/05 06:00 PM

I am tired of all this Bush bashing. He is a good man with an agenda to protect us all.

Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.

The President did not break any law. Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority. Further, the Justice Department has acknowledged the right of to President to follow this action.

I was in New York on September 11, watching my building being destroyed.

I am proud that my President took a strong stand against the terrorists, and that his actions have had a crippling effect on their destructive efforts.
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/23/05 04:50 AM

Greetings forenacct,

Welcome to Boomer Women Speak and to our current thread/discussion. Here, you will find many women who believe as you do about the president. For the most part, this is a site of conservative Christians and republicans. There are also a smattering of us whose beliefs differ from the views held by our conservative sisters. This country thrives on these differences. I respect your right to agree or disagree and welcome your input. As Casey so aptly put it: "Consistently coming back to the point that the President broke a law is important. And so are having discussions with people who don't agree with us -- those who believe that the president should do everything he can (legal or illegal) to protect us. We need to heal this divide so we can get back to being the nation we truly are "with liberty and justice for ALL." We may not always agree, but as Voltaire and Patrick Henry said, “I may not agree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

That is exactly what we are trying to protect, the right to voice our differences in a civil and productive manner and to address what we see as injustices and lies perpetrated by our government and specifically at this time the executive branch of the government.

We, therefore, welcome you to submit any substantiated views you have. Respectful discussion is vital to the healing that Casey is talking about and to the positive future of this country.

Returning now to the theme of this thread, I've come across another article of growing concern.

FCC net wiretapping rules irk even local governments
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/22/fcc_net_wiretapping_.html
Read it for yourself to see what you think.

Regarding posts made, in response to the comment:

quote:
"Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence."
Yesterday, Sen. John Murtha was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer and said that it has been "alleged" that previous administrations have resorted to Bush's tactics, but there's no documented evidence to indicate the allegations were true, and, additionally, he believes the allegations to be false. As for the court that oversees national security cases, I'm not sure what is meant. If the FISA court is meant, the statement is wrong - this is an item discussed in my last post:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/20/wiretaps/index.html

quote:
Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, discounted the administration's contention that the program was necessary to ensure a swifter response than the FISA court would allow.

"That's why our law allows a president to go right away and apply for those warrants retroactively within 72 hours," she told CNN.

Additionally Barbara Boxer stated:

quote:
"There's nothing in there that gave the president the authority to override the law," says Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. She has asked four legal scholars if they believe Bush has admitted an "impeachable offense."
Regarding the statement:

quote:
Further, the Justice Department has acknowledged the right of to President to follow this action.
It isn't really clear if this refers to the court system or the attorney general.

If the courts, I haven't heard any final ruling on the legality of all this - though the resignation of one of the FISA judges yesterday seems to point in a definite direction, as does the following article:

Spy court to get secret briefing -- about secrets
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/22/nsa.court/index.html


There are a few points in the article which refute the following statement:

quote:
Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
One, a logical deduction: if they were sure Bush's actions were legal, there would be no briefing, secret or otherwise.

Two - from the article:

quote:
The surveillance court, made up of 11 judges from across the nation, was created in 1978 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The legislation mandates that intelligence agencies seeking to monitor domestic conversations must ask the court for a warrant.
Three:
quote:
The Bush administration argues the NSA program is exempt from that requirement.

Several FISA court judges are raising concerns about the program, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the briefing.
Those concerns include questions about whether the Bush administration has overreached its authority, and whether information that might have been gathered illegally was used to obtain warrants from the court, the newspaper said in Thursday's editions.

And four:

quote:
Many Democrats and civil rights advocates say the program is not lawful because it was not explicitly authorized by legislation.
As you can see, according to the experts, it has yet to be determined.

If, on the other hand, the reference is to the Attorney General's Office, Gonzales' statements of legality have already been discounted by many as possibly meaningless. Which is also acknowledged by the above - the courts wanting to hold an inquiry. Regarding any comments Gonzales would make about the eavesdropping, of course he's going to side with his boss. Everyone associated with President Bush, especially his appointees, will side with him - if they want to keep their jobs. To say that Gonzales endorses Bush's eavesdropping, is in the same category as police departments having the police department as their oversight committee. If I'm not mistaken, the Attorney General's Office is part of the executive branch of government. But regardless of who the reference is to, it is still widely believed in the circles that would know, that Bush's actions are indeed illegal . . . that's why they all want a congressional inquiry held . . . that's why everyone's complaining about what President Bush is doing.

As for the September 11 reference, on any given work day, there are upwards of 10 million people in the NY City area, at least a million of whom were in close proximity to the Trade Center. And millions more (all over the country) who actually saw/watched the attacks and destruction as it was happening. (My husband who was raised in New York and worked in Manhattan for a number of years was getting ready to go fishing the morning of September 11th. The only part of the devastating attack that he didn't see himself "live" was when the first plane actually hit the north tower - though he did see it in rerun after a reporter submitted his taping of it to the media. He turned on the news about five minutes after the first hit and watched all the rest of it - well past the second tower's collapsing . . . as well as seeing and hearing the news cast of the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crashes. It hit him as hard as if he was standing right there.) Those that weren't glued to their sets, or actual participants, were later flooded with all the events over and over and over again - a true saturation bombing of the senses. Yes, we all feel for the loss, for those building belonged to all Americans, and all Americans were attacked that day.

As for the president taking a strong stand against the terrorists and his actions having a crippling effect on their destructive efforts, I would ask the question, when you consider all the attacks all over the world since then, did he really hinder anything? Or did he escalate a bad situation into a worse one? Is he a savior or was he just crying wolf to distract us from what conjecture seems to be pointing at - selling out the country for himself and his cohort's gain!

[ December 23, 2005, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: Searcher

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/23/05 06:51 AM

Vi,

I am SO respectfull of your knowledge, your research, and your fervor....I could never aspire to such a great place. I truly can barely get through my day at this time in my life. But My Mother used to say to me, "Now what have you heard about current events? Do you watch important news? Are you watching, hearing what's going on? This is important to you!" I would bow to her wisdom, and say, "well, I'm trying Mamma, but life just gets in my way..." To which she would reply " Life has already gotten in everyone's way - now, pay attention!" I am still guilty.

In my defense, ......well, there is no defense. Mother was right. Sick children or no. And Vi is right. And that sick child of mine would have died much sooner if it had not been for this country.....

I will say this, tho'. I believe no one. Not Clinton, not Bush. Not republican, not democrat. I know that I am not privvy to all the information necessary to make an informed decision. In all other aspects of my life, I require, no demand, all the information I need to make a decision as best I can. An in the instance of politics, I find it takes so much research, that I cannot spend all the time it takes to make a reasonable decision with the information I have. Especially when people are TRYING to keep this information from me. That's the point, you know. The President and all his minions, no matter which party he is affiliated with is TRYING to keep information from us = making us , spinning every piece of knowledge, spend so much time figuring out their latest "strategy" that it is completely daunting to most of us....Reading what I have just written, it scares me to death. I have never been one to be demonstrating on the White House Lawns, but lately, I'm thinking this has been a mistake of mine. This world is scaring me right now. Maybe it should have scared me before, but I was too buried in my child's illness. And it also makes me angry that our own government makes it their specialty to hide what's really going on.....How are we, as citizens, to know of their atrocities, if no one speaks of them? To this end, I applaude the news makers. I know they, too are suspect, and we must be judicious in watching and hearing what they say. But HOLY COW, this gets exhausting.....can't people just tell the da-nd truth? I suppose truth is just how each of us sees it............

So , I guess, I'm saying that this is all too overwhelming for me. And I don't think I am alone. We are all so burdened with just getting by a day..........

But now, reading this, I see I am failing. Exhausting or not, I guess we BETTER get with it...in fact, were not our foresisters exhausted? I am sure they were. So I better just shut up and get going..........

Christmas Greetings to all, and to all a good night - I'm going to bed.

Search
Posted by: DJ

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/23/05 02:13 PM

Searcher,I think you raise a crucial point. And that is something that interested people in this country have forgotten -- no one person or no one side has teh complete monopoly on the truth. Everyone needs to listen to each other. No one can say -- whether President or congressperson or newscaster, Democrat or Republican, Christian or Moslem or Jew or pagan -- that he or she has all the information. That's what being in a democracy is all about.

Free speech isn't just about talking. It's also about listening. And such listening needs to be accompanied by an open mind, a mind free of prejudices. Prejudices come in all shapes and sizes. Actually, Mohammad said to his followers to seek the truth, no matter where it comes from. Thus the true Moslem honored the Bible and the Torah. Early Christians (when Augustine was a bishop and started to have influence on new generations of Christians) adopted this practice, and started to accept the pagan writings of Plato, Aristotle and Cicero.

We all should do the same.
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/24/05 03:06 AM

Yes! Discussion! Listening! Pausing! Reflecting!
I agree with you Searcher, that it all can be overwhelming and that there are times in our lives when we need to ignore it. I'm sorry about your child -- it's got to be the most difficult thing in the world.
That where we as women can most easily connect -- understanding another woman's feelings about her child, even if we don't have one of our own.
I feel that duplicity in the government has been growing over time through all our administrations, no matter which party. If the demand that we look into Mr. Clinton's behavior was right, then the demand that we look into Mr. Bush's behavior is also right. I don't think we know the answers, and won't until there is an investigation.
In the meantime, what are our own values regardless of what the law says right now? Do we believe that unauthorized spying of our neighbors and ourselves with the decision to spy made by a handful of people? How do we know that this handful of people doesn't stray beyond looking for terrorists into looking for those who disagree with their political views?
Just questions....:--))
Posted by: norma

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/23/05 06:13 PM

Casey, you asked 'what are our own values regardless of what the law says'? May i ask,
what about laws that are very specific, but seems to be important only when it involves one's own people? When it is against the law in a nation to imprison someone without charge after a certain period of time, when it is illegal to use violence to get information from suspected individuals, why is it all right for the same nation to have certain government agencies do those things beyond their borders ? Why is it acceptable for those government agencies to take suspects, or assist in the taking of them and then transporting them to foreign soils where torture is used for whatever purpose, or where they will be held without any recourse to legal representation and fair trial?

Good topic Vi.. it is interesting to read the thoughtful and well expressed replies....

[ December 23, 2005, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: norma ]
Posted by: Pattyann

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/23/05 09:25 PM

Casey- you are a wise woman and it is so good to know that there are concerned. intelligent women here who are willing to talk and to listen
Posted by: ladybug

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/24/05 12:48 AM

I've been learning so much reading all of this.

I am also thankful that it has been handled respectfully among all of you. It has been without all the nasty comments that were posted in the one topic I started on Hillary Clinton. One person actually suggested she was going to "water on this thread." I can only guess what that meant so I am really pleased to see that none of that nonsense is going on here. Everyone has spoken freely without that other noise pollution.

I don't feel that our country is safer since 9/11. A terrorist expert from Israel said he was so surprised at the lack of security in major public venues in this country. He also felt our government is spending too much time and surveillance on people who pose no threat and ignoring those who do. He said racial profiling is used extensively in his country and we should do the same.
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/24/05 02:06 AM

Searcher, there is no need to beat yourself up for noninvolvement in political matters during the years of your daughter's illness. Both then and now you've been under tremendous stress. A person only has so much energy and time. You did what you needed to do. The fact that you are attending this topic at all is amazing, given how depressing all this can be. Take care of yourself, take time to heal. I will post the relevant research that I come across. You have a good head and a good heart, and you use them wisely. You are not failing - the opposite is true.

As indicated in other threads there was a time when I faced things alone - over a periods of years, and my life was more difficult. I grew a lot. I think that was the purpose. Now, I have a dear husband who loves me no matter what. He provides emotional, intellectual, creative and spiritual support. So it is easier for me to find the strength to do the things I believe in.

DJ, I appreciate your comments about free speech, listening and that no one has a monopoly on the truth. Excellent observations.

Casey, your statement: "If the demand that we look into Mr. Clinton's behavior was right, then the demand that we look into Mr. Bush's behavior is also right. I don't think we know the answers, and won't until there is an investigation." is so true.

Norma, all of your questions are good ones, questions that concerned citizens of this country, citizens of the world, really need to ask, need to have answered truthfully, not by those dancing around their lies.

Pattyann, yes, it is good that "concerned, intelligent women" are willing to talk about this. It is my belief that talking about it is key to getting to the root of things and making sure the appropriate investigations take place.

Now to todays news stories.

A past legal precedent:


Alito Defended Officials From Wiretap Suits

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051223/ap_on_go_su_co/alito

It appears, in this story, that, based on a memo he wrote in 1984 to the Solicitor General under President Reagan, Alito is definitely a partisan of the republican party. To me, it raises questions as to whether or not, as a Supreme Court judge, he would be able to separate his political views from his judiciary capacity.


quote:
The memo dealt with whether government officials should have blanket protection from lawsuits when authorizing wiretaps. "I do not question that the attorney general should have this immunity," Alito wrote. "But for tactical reasons, I would not raise the issue here."

Despite Alito's warning that the government would lose, the Reagan administration took the fight to the Supreme Court in the case of whether Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell, could be sued for authorizing a warrantless domestic wiretap to gather information about a suspected terrorist plot. The FBI had received information about a conspiracy to destroy utility tunnels in Washington and kidnap Henry Kissinger, then national security adviser.

The case actually went to the Supreme Court:

quote:
That case ultimately led to a 1985 ruling by the Supreme Court that the attorney general and other high level executive officials could be sued for violating people's rights, in the name of national security, with such actions as domestic wiretaps.

"The danger that high federal officials will disregard constitutional rights in their zeal to protect the national security is sufficiently real to counsel against affording such officials an absolute immunity," the court held.

However, the court said Mitchell was protected from suit, because when he authorized the wiretap he did not realize his actions violated the Fourth Amendment.

The decision was consistent with the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in 1972 that it was unconstitutional for the government to conduct wiretaps without court approval despite the Nixon administration's argument that domestic anti-war groups and other radicals were a threat to national security.

However, it's nice to see that the democrats are leary of Alito:


quote:
... the president's authority on eavesdropping will be central issues when the Senate Judiciary Committee opens confirmation hearings on Alito's nomination Jan. 9.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the top Democrat on the committee, said the latest documents "fill in more blanks and deepen the impression of activism that colors Judge Alito's career" and raise issues critical to the panel.

"One of the most important, and one of the most timely, is the issue of unchecked presidential authority and the particular issue of warrantless eavesdropping on the American people," Leahy said.

Another committee Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) of New York, released a letter to Alito in which he questioned whether the nominee believes in absolute immunity for the attorney general and other government officials "from suits based on even willful unconstitutional acts."

Schumer vowed to question Alito on the issue and warned that if he refused to answer questions, it would make it harder for members of the panel to support his confirmation.

MSNBC presented the same AP story.

Alito defended government wiretap rights
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10586849/


This one, by Eleanor Clift of NewsWeek, is a "MUST READ" - about half is in regards to the NSA stuff:

Big Lies
Who told the worst political untruth of 2005? It’s a shame the list of contenders is so long.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10578257/site/newsweek/

I found the following within the article to be of particular interest:

quote:
Bush’s explanation is riddled with lies. He says our enemies are watching and threatens The New York Times, which broke the spying story, with legal action. It takes a vivid imagination to believe that Osama bin Laden and his buddies are keeping up with the niceties of FISA courts and would otherwise have no idea their phones might be tapped. Bush says he talks to Congress all the time and that there was plenty of congressional oversight. Not true. The Gang of Eight (leaders of both parties in the House and Senate, plus the chair and ranking members of the Intelligence Committees) were forbidden to take notes or discuss what they were told with colleagues or staff. Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s hand-written letter to Cheney expressed uneasiness about the program. Rockefeller couldn’t have its legality evaluated by staff. He couldn’t even have the letter typed because of the secrecy. That hardly qualifies as congressional oversight.
An additional story about government spying and the reasoning behind it - this time the Pentagon claiming a Quaker organization may somehow be a threat to national security.

Senator demands investigation of spy database
Pentagon defends domestic intelligence collection, vows to cooperate
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10481600/from/RS.1/

The gist of it:


quote:
Wednesday, some members of a Florida anti-war group called "The Truth Project" demanded that the Pentagon turn over all information collected about their group.

And Florida Senator Bill Nelson wrote Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asking how this peaceful group could be listed a "threat" in a previously secret Pentagon database.

"When the Pentagon starts going into a Quaker meeting house in Florida, then it's a question of invasion of privacy," says Nelson, R-Fl

A telling statement from the article:

quote:
"This document, it's a clue that shows the level of surveillance, the level of domestic surveillance that the U.S. military is now involved in," says Bill Arkin, an NBC News military analyst.
Even the conservative Christian Science Monitor has a concern over what Bush has done:

Bush's use of executive power
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20051223/cm_csm/yschorr23

quote:
Mr. Bush chose not to avail himself of the tool that Congress has provided for the purpose of eavesdropping - The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in 1978 as a reaction to President Nixon's domestic spying. That Act permits the president to apply in secret to a special court for a warrant. The administration is authorized to begin surveillance for 72 hours while waiting for the warrant, which is almost always granted.

In his defiance, there may be peril for the president, as President Nixon discovered when the House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against him, one of them for abusing the power of three agencies - the FBI, CIA, and IRS. Nixon took the position that he was using inherent presidential powers granted by the Constitution.

The Constitution says that the president shall exercise the "executive power" and shall be commander in chief of the armed forces, but it doesn't spell out what those powers are. Some presidents have come up with what they call the "inherent power" of the presidency, which tends to be what they make it.

Historians have said that President Lincoln freed the slaves, blockaded Southern ports, and instituted a draft all without constitutional authority. President Reagan invoked "inherent powers" to justify the illegal sale of missiles to Iran and the illegal financing of the civil war in Nicaragua. Short of impeachment, the Congress has no way of stopping a willful president except to deny him funds. That, of course, is unlikely, especially with a Republican-controlled Congress.

This is a sidebar article, but quite interesting - not all arabs (or bin ladens) are terrorists.

Bin Laden's niece appears in racy photos
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/23/bin.laden.niece.ap/index.html

Back to the main topic:

Administration defends NSA eavesdropping to Congress

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/23/justice.nsa/index.html

A five-page letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, was sent late Thursday to House and Senate Intelligence committee chairmen and their Democratic counterparts. What was reported in the article was simply a reiteration of Bush's reasoning for bypassing the FISA court. The reaction, by congress, to the letter reiterated that FISA was all Bush needed, no matter the speed necessary to carry out an eavesdrop (FISA allows for the instant eavesdrop, provided a warrent is requested within 72 hours), and they are concerned that Bush might have broken the law.


Thanks again for all your participation in this thread.
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/24/05 02:22 AM

ladybug, yes it nice that this is a civilized thread. Maybe if you restarted your Hillary thread it would be handled in a more respectful manner now. To respect each other is so important. You brought up an interesting concept from that Israeli terrorist expert. I wonder though, if racial profiling would be an acceptable concept for us. Too many innocent people could be sucked into it. That happened here in my home state of Oregon to an innocent Muslim attorney. Guilt association by ethnic origin ruined his career and his life. What do you think?
Posted by: Sadie

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/24/05 05:07 AM

Ladybug ,
I was the one who said that! I also said you know what they do with cats when they fight threw water on them . Get you story staight and you were the one started the trouble in there . So ....

[ December 24, 2005, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Nancy50 ]
Posted by: ladybug

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/24/05 04:07 PM

No, we cannot have racial profiling here, at least not openly. I'm not even sure it would accomplish anything other than irritating innocent people.

The terrorist expert himself was strip-searched randomly at one of our airports. It's understandable that they do racial profiling in his country when you consider all the suicide bombers they are plagued with.

[ December 24, 2005, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: ladybug ]
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/24/05 04:12 PM

Norma, you wrote: "May i ask,
what about laws that are very specific, but seems to be important only when it involves one's own people? When it is against the law in a nation to imprison someone without charge after a certain period of time, when it is illegal to use violence to get information from suspected individuals, why is it all right for the same nation to have certain government agencies do those things beyond their borders ? Why is it acceptable for those government agencies to take suspects, or assist in the taking of them and then transporting them to foreign soils where torture is used for whatever purpose, or where they will be held without any recourse to legal representation and fair trial?"

Just so I understand the values and beliefs behind what you are asking, do you mind if I probe a little deeper? (Feel free to ignore me! LOL!)

Is your concern with the inconsistency due to a value of being connected with every other human being on earth? That we are all one and related? I can see that the people who practice the inconsistency which you highlight as those who value winning (usually at any cost) as opposed to relating.

Or is it more that you believe that we can win more effectively if we practice peace (nonviolence) in all areas of government, both in or out of the country?

Or is it something I totally don't get yet? :--)))

Vi, Interesting information -- as always! Thanks! It is the problem with leaders -- good and bad. Someone does need to keep them in check and remind them that their worldview is not necessarily consistent with the people whom they govern. I think we do tend to let our leaders (from presidents of nations to presidents of corporations) get away with things if we believe they are following an intrinsic good or believe that we are undeserving, afraid or unable to criticize a leader.
The other thing that has changed from the time of Lincoln is the speed with which things happen.
Posted by: ladybug

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/24/05 04:28 PM

President Bush's actions have made other countries regard us as bullies who rule the playground.
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/24/05 04:59 PM

And what would you rather see? What is it you want your president to do for us as a nation?
Posted by: Bluebird

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/24/05 05:10 PM

When I think of how other nations hate us, it reminds me of the story of Joseph, in the old testament. He had dreams and visions and he was favored by his father, Jacob. All of his brothers hated him because they were JEALOUS of him.
Jacob represents God, Joseph is the US, and the brothers, other nations. God has blessed our country because of the principles it was founded on. We give people freedom and opportunity and the ability to worship as they please. God rewards us for that, yet other nations, insteaad of following our lead, hate us.
I never see our country as a bully...I see it as a land of loving, giving and protective people, who look out for others all over the world. I would never want to live anywhere else.
Now, we are not perfect and many of our laws have pulled away from Godly principles, so we have our consequences. God is calling us back to repentance and I believe this president is trying, in his way, to lead us there. I truly believe he is a humble leader with a sincere and deep faith in his Creator. I trust him and support him. When Clinton was president, I didn't feel the same way but I always said we should pray for him and support him as our elected president...and I did.
Just my view.
Posted by: ladybug

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/24/05 06:05 PM

Bluebird, trust me, I would not want to live anywhere else either. Several members of my family have fought to give me the freedom to speak.

However, our actions toward other countries we perceive to view as our enemies have placed us in a precarious situation.

We speak peace on one hand and unecessary, unproductive torture on the other.
Posted by: norma

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/24/05 07:38 PM

Casey.... thanks for your questions, i was specifically referring to ..

a)an apparent legal CIA policy of 'extra ordinary rendition'. Referred to by others as the outsourcing of torture.

b)the continual holding of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, where the excellent laws of the US legal system do not seem to apply.

To your other questions .. i believe all people are one and the same, in that, what is necessary for me, is undoubtedly necessary for the other.. be it food, shelter, clean water, clean air, safe housing, affordable medical care, educational opportunities,protection from abuse and exploitation, and the list could go on.

These things are far removed from the majority of the world's people .. there have been decades to make changes, yet that hasn't happened. I think it is because fear rules the world more often than common sense. But i could be wrong.. thanks again Casey for the opportunity to answer.

[ December 24, 2005, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: norma ]
Posted by: norma

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/24/05 09:58 PM

Bluebird, in the aftermath of 9/11 the world witnessed the absolute 'loving, giving and protective' nature of your people. Regardless of race, religion or whatever your people rushed to the aid of those decimated because of that criminal attack. And those acts of compassion were examples of leadership people all over the world could only admire and respect.

But are you correct in thinking other nations are 'jealous'? There are more than a few other nations which also have open democratic systems.

Is it not possible that if Saudi Arabia used their 'charitable' funds from their oil riches to fund clean water lines, sewer systems, hospitals, and open educational systems in various parts of the world instead of mosques governed by extreme islamic fundamentalists, maybe there would be less hate towards the west?

Maybe if the foreign policy of various governments reflected the same standards they expected for their own nation, there would be less hate in the world ?

Maybe if certain males in various parts of the world extended to the other half of their population the same rights and privileges they want for themselves, there would be less poverty in their own homeland and therefore less resentment towards others in the world ?

[ December 24, 2005, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: norma ]
Posted by: Thistle Cove Farm

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/24/05 11:47 PM

And it came to pass...

"May you always live in interesting times"
Posted by: ladybug

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/25/05 12:55 AM

It's not up to me to decide what I want my president to do as a nation.

Our tax dollars pay the salaries of our president's advisors. I think that's what we rely on them to do, to make the right decisions. From what a majority of the American public feels those have not been wise decisions.

The polls indicate a large percentage of Americans feel they have been misled on many matters of grave import.

[ December 24, 2005, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: ladybug ]
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/25/05 04:36 AM

Greetings ladies,

The New York Times came out with a new article today on the amount of data collected by eavesdropping without a warrant. The amount appears to be much greater than anyone in the administration has previously admitted, and it doesn't appear to be limited to outgoing calls to Al Qaeda and affiliate destinations, as they claimed . . . If this information is true, here are two more lies and a bunch more deceit. When are "We the People" going to start holding President Bush and those involved accountable on this? A full investigation is in order, the sooner the better.


Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html?hp&ex=1135486800&en=7e76956223502390&ei=5094&partner=homepage

quote:
. . . according to current and former government officials.

The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said.

As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said.

Apparently, this newly discovered form of eavesdropping is being done on communications "within the country", not just to and from overseas locations, and they appear to be done on perhaps thousands (or more) citizens who don't have affiliations to anything - they're data mining.

quote:
. . . the N.S.A. has sought to analyze communications patterns to glean clues from details like who is calling whom, how long a phone call lasts and what time of day it is made, and the origins and destinations of phone calls and e-mail messages. Calls to and from Afghanistan, for instance, are known to have been of particular interest to the N.S.A. since the Sept. 11 attacks, the officials said.

This so-called "pattern analysis" on calls within the United States would, i many circumstances, require a court warrant if the government wanted to trace who calls whom.

The use of similar data-mining operations by the Bush administration in other contexts has raised strong objections, most notably in connection with the Total Information Awareness system, developed by the Pentagon for tracking terror suspects, and the Department of Homeland Security's Capps program for screening airline passengers. Both programs were ultimately scrapped after public outcries over possible threats to privacy and civil liberties.

There's too many additional points of interest to list them all.


This next article by Howard Fineman of Newsweek is excellent, telling of what he predicts from all this. (The "I" word is "Impeach".) Don't forget to read page 2, that's where the predictions are.


The 'I Word'
Expect 2006 to offer up Nixon-era nastiness and a chorus of calls to impeach Bush.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10564288/site/newsweek/from/RS.1/


The following article by Arlene Getz of Newsweek cites an interesting correlation between what is happening here and what happened during apartheid in South Africa. I particularly find fascinating her comments on the American attitude on what's happening.


Where’s the Outrage?
Bush’s defense of his phone-spying program has disturbing echoes of arguments once used by South Africa’s apartheid regime. Why Americans should examine the parallels.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562528/site/newsweek/from/RS.2/


I keep thinking that since this is the holiday season that the situation will calm down and the stories subside until after the New Year. That remains to be seen. I do agree that this is indeed an interesting time to be alive. It certainly is not boring, unless one considers that maybe humanity should have grown beyond all this millennia ago, and that the present situation is predictable.

In spite of all this negativity that is going on, regardless of how you celebrate (or don't celebrate) this time of year, I would like to wish you peace in a prosperous future.

[ December 25, 2005, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/25/05 07:13 AM

I've heard those accusations on network news and read them in the NYT.

Now they're links on here too. Seems like a waste.

smile
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/25/05 06:15 PM

Posting the stories here gives those who are participating in this thread a chance to read more of the stories. The regular media channels give only small snippets of information - because of the time limit they have for each story. Some of us like to see who said what, how it was said, if the various arms of the media agree or not. And it's easy to forget exactly what anyone said and how they said it. The slant the news is given depends on the bias of the particular broadcast network. I do not consider gaining more information and a wider scope a waste. I consider it essential in the effort to become fully informed - which is my goal. There are also some people who don't listen to the news and some people who don't read the NYT. Several people on this thread have expressed gratitude that the information is here. Also, some people don't have the time to check all the sources themselves.

I'm including the links as a substanitation of the thread and the facts, not just my opinion and conjecture.
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/25/05 07:37 PM

I thought the hilary topic was hilarious and all in fun, but I'm so tired of politics as usual. It's Christmas, the season of peace and good will even to our country and our leader. Seems like we have so much to be thankful for at this time of year.

Here's why the courts were avoided by President Bush.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/25/MNGCEGD95C1.DTL

smile

[ December 25, 2005, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: smilinize ]
Posted by: ladybug

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/26/05 05:33 AM

Vi, thank you for all the information.
Posted by: Pattyann

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/26/05 11:55 AM

Hello all- when Vi started this topic she honestly warned all that it had political content
There are those of us who are passionately involved in politics and those who aren't . Choose your forums wisely. ladies-PEACE
Posted by: unique

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/26/05 12:18 PM

quote:
For the most part, this is a site of conservative Christians and republicans.
For the record: I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be - a Republican.
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/27/05 03:51 AM

Ladybug, you said, "It's not up to me to decide what I want my president to do as a nation."

If you don't mind, I'd like to explore that statement a bit.

I keep a copy of the Constitution nearby, because I feel it is my document of liberty in this nation. It spells out the basic part of my duties, obligations and rights as a citizen and what my elected officials have as obligations. Much of the document can be open to interpretation and I think the founding fathers (and mothers!) were wise enough to know that times change and they didn't know everything that needed to be done.

The Duties of the President are mercifully brief. They include making recommendations and providing information to Congress, receiving ambassadors and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Without getting into a great many details, that is what I expect my President to do, to perform as an executive within the laws of the United States which are created by Congress. Congress has the power to declare war, not the President. Congress declared the Iraq war (whether or not they had all the information they needed is another can of worms I'd rather not get into here). So, if we are poorly perceived by other countries, all of our elected representatives bear some of that burden.

I asked the question because there is so much talk about how the president should NOT act, that I was wondering about the reverse -- being a positive, pro-active kind of person.

Norma, thanks for your reply. I, too, believe that all of us are essentially the same. Mothers everywhere care deeply for their children and do the best they can. I've never met a mother anywhere who wanted to see their child in a place where others were trying to kill them or in a place where the child felt it necessary to blow him or herself up.

Yet that is happening? I have to wonder why?
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/27/05 03:53 AM

I realize that I may be straying off the topic, Vi. Although, I believe the underlying discussion of beliefs and values bear directly on how we perceive the president's actions with the NSA.
Posted by: ladybug

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/26/05 04:36 PM

Dear Casey, you are to be commended for not interpreting my comment in the wrong way. Thank you so much!! It was meant in only the kindest and most respectful manner.

You are right in your comments of course.

What I have seen of the Bush administration is a poor economy as evidenced by the falling value of the dollar, a rise in personal bankruptcies and the housing boom finally ending. I have seen the daily tallies of the dead and wounded Americans posted in our newspaper. This president is against abortion but sends sons and daughters out to be killed in a war which all but the most naive persons are questioning the veracity of.

I for one will be very glad to see this man leave the Whitehouse. I did not vote for him. His first victory over Gore was suspect and I believe this second victory over Kerry was equally tainted. Vi's information (which is backed up with facts) is proving to be the case.

Again, thank you so much for not misinterpreting any of my comments. I've been reading your posts and I'm very glad to see you here! [Smile]
Posted by: DJ

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/26/05 06:07 PM

Smile,
I read the article you suggested from the San Francisco Chronicle. It says that Bush avoided the FISA court because the aministration felt that it wouldn't be able to get "probable cause" for surveillance of many of the citizens they wanted to spy on.

These quotes sum up the article:

"Bamford, 59, a Vietnam-era Navy veteran, likens the Bush administration's domestic surveillance without court approval to Nixon-era abuses of intelligence agencies..."NSA prides itself on learning the lessons of the 1970s and obeying the legal restrictions imposed by FISA," Bamford said. "Now it looks like we're going back to the bad old days again."
Posted by: norma

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/26/05 07:11 PM

Casey, whose 'beliefs and values' are you asking about?

As a citizen of another nation, i want to say
the obvious outpouring of help given by Americans as individuals, to those directly hurt from various catastrophes, speaks volumes about the values and beliefs of American citizens. The obvious and final overwhelming anger during the Vietnam war, about not only American casualities, but the questionable integrity of south vietnam authorities, the napalm, agent orange, and suffering of Vietnamese civilians, spoke volumes about the true values of the American people.

Or are your asking about the beliefs and values of those who are, or have been in high positions of authority and trust within your nation ?

Giving 'lip service' to one's stated beliefs and values, is not unique. In fact many of us, could be declared guilty...... unfortunatedly, one's position of power, can have devasting effects on others, when one gives lip service only..... ...

[ December 26, 2005, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: norma ]
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/26/05 07:38 PM

I completely disregarded the speculation by Mr. Bamford. Being a Viet Nam Veteran is admirable, but does not qualify him as a mind reader.

The 'fact' that the court denied and/or altered Mr. Bush's requests to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists while approving more than 18,000 others seemed a viable justification for avoiding the FISA court.

I hope our contry continues to eavesdrop on anyone who communicates with terrorists. If we had intercepted such communication before 9/11, perhaps we could have avoided that horrific loss of life.

smile
Posted by: ladybug

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/26/05 11:51 PM

Didn't Bush have plenty of information before hand that something was going to happen regarding this terrorist attack but in effect did next to nothing and ignored the warnings?

Help us on this one Vi because if anyone has the facts to back up my statement I know you do, otherwise I shall stand corrected.
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/26/05 11:53 PM

Sorry it took me a while to login to this thread today. I was doing author things. I have several books in need of agents. I'm in the process of sending out query letters.

Thanks for all the support for this thread.

You're welcome, Ladybug. I am pleased to provide the information in a way that makes it amenable to civilized discussion. I agree with what you said about Bush's affect on the economy, the fate of our sons and daughters who are sent into a questionable war verses his views on abortion. Apparently he is capable of astounding mental gymnastics.

Smile, I thank you for adding your comments and for the article you submitted. They make us think. That's one of the reasons I started this thread. I, too, want our country to continue to eavesdrop on terrorists - but only within the law. This country is supposed to be a democracy - at least that's what our leaders want us to think.

So what does the word democracy mean? The American Heritage Dictionary defines democracy this way:

quote:
de·moc·ra·cy n., pl. de·moc·ra·cies. 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
The American Hertitage Dictionary defines dictatorship as:

quote:
dic·ta·tor·ship, n. 1. A government in which a single leader or party exercises absolute control over all citizens and every aspect of their lives: a. autocracy b. absolutism 2. A political doctrine advocating the principle of absolute rule: a. despotism b. autocracy c. totalitarianism d. authoritarianism e. absolutism 3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: a. tyranny b. despotism c. autocracy d. totalitarianism
Myself, I prefer democracy, but when our executive branch acts on its own, usurps the law, guess where we are headed?

As Pattyann mentioned I did post a notice at the beginning of this thread. Thanks for mentioning it. I know political topics can become heated and finding yourself in the middle of something you don't want to be part of can be unsettling.

Unique, you're lucky. You didn't have to transition away from republicanism. I was raised in a conservative Christian republican household. I didn't learn enough in high school to help me decide which party's values I should embrace. Could be I wasn't paying attention. It was during the Vietnam war that I became a democrat,although really, my party affiliation falls between the cracks.

Casey, thanks for adding your constitutional knowledge to this thread. I greatly appreciate it. I do not have a copy of it nearby. From the looks of things it would be wise if I got one.

DJ, thanks for pointing out Bamford's statement of summation. These have become "the bad old days."

Norma, I so value your views as a person from another country looking into our dirty laundry room and seeing the heaps of stuff piled everywhere. Sometimes it's harder to see our own filth. I'm ready to dump it all the the washer, add bleach and vast amounts of soap.

Now to my comments about the article Smile submitted.


"Why Bush decided to bypass court in ordering wiretaps Panel of judges modified his requests"

quote:
Government records show that the Bush administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's approval.
Regardless of whether or not the Bush administration liked the "modified requests" the President's obligation to the nation and its people is to uphold the law. His actions do not uphold the law. Perhaps his "requests" were modified because they were not justified, after all, isn't determining such things one of the main purposes of our court system? Secondly, I get the feeling that the phrase "second guessing" is a childish way of saying, "You didn't side with me, so I'm going to cry 'foul'." I seriously doubt that the court "second guesses". I would think that, if anything, since they are competent judges, they saw an incorrect or illegal justification within the request and, until it is proven otherwise, acted within the law to modify the request - an example of our laws and constitution executed appropriately.

quote:
A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.
This is a leading statement that right away attempts to incite and bias the reader because it doesn't address how many requests the current administration actually made, so it's hard to tell if four times the number of modifications is actually a high percentage compared to the four previous administrations. For example, if he put in ten times the number of requests, four times the amount of modifications isn't really all that much - a total number can be misleading if the percentages aren't included. Incomplete information has often been used to justify actions. (Later in the article figures are eventually given, and you can read my comments about them.)


quote:
"They wanted to expand the number of people they were eavesdropping on, and they didn't think they could get the warrants they needed from the court to monitor those people," said Bamford, author of "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" and "The Puzzle Palace: Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization." "The FISA court has shown its displeasure by tinkering with these applications by the Bush administration."
Here, again, I take exception to the word "tinkering". It's on the same level as the phrase "second guessing". Apparently, Bamford, as with Bush, doesn't like the fact that the court saw flaws in the administrations requests. He's using the same degrade and deride attitude Bush and Cheney use when someone reveals their underhanded tactics - referring to the descenters as miscreants and calling them unpatriotic.

quote:
To win a court-approved wiretap, the government must show "probable cause" that the target of the surveillance is a member of a foreign terrorist organization or foreign power and is engaged in activities that "may" involve a violation of criminal law.

No 'probable cause'

Faced with that standard, Bamford said the Bush administration had difficulty obtaining FISA court-approved wiretaps on dozens of people within the United States who were communicating with targeted al Qaeda suspects inside the United States.

"The court wouldn't find enough 'probable cause' to give the Bush administration wiretap warrants on everybody that talks to or e-mails the terror suspect that they were trying to target," Bamford said.

The use of the word "wouldn't" in the last sentence makes it sound like they weren't looking for probable cause and are trying to punish the president or not take seriously his requests. As I said before, they are competent judges, and my guess is they "didn't" find probable cause. Could it also be that not everyone who knows a terrorist actually knows that that person "is" a terrorist? Also, is everyone who knows a terrorist also a terrorist? Guilt by association only works when both parties are involved in the activity. A good example is the Unibomber. His brother knew him but was not involved in any of the bombing plots - in fact, the Unibomber's brother was the one, who once realizing who the Unibomber was, turned him in. I bring this up because it's important to remember that our laws use the guiding premise "innocent, until proven guilty".

quote:
The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation. In 20 of the first 21 annual reports on the court's activities up to 1999, the Justice Department told Congress that "no orders were entered (by the FISA court) which modified or denied the requested authority" submitted by the government.

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004, the most recent years for which public records are available.

Here, finally, are figures that can be turned into percentages. And the percentage of modification is indeed higher than in previous administrations. Regardless of the percentages, however, it's still illegal and an infringement of civil rights to circumvent the courts. It may well be true that the current administration felt that all instances were justified, but they were apparently unable to convince the courts that 179 of them were justified. I see this (in light of 179 out of 5,645 requests being only 3.17094 percent - with the original 13,102 having had only 2 modifications, that brings the total modifications/rejected/deferred count to 181, this in turn brings the total percent of modified/rejected requests on 18,740 submissions to a mere ,097118463 %) as not being an exorbitant amount of modifications that indicate the courts are willfully hindering any investigation and definitely, it is not just cause to break the law.

quote:
The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.
Without seeing the rejected and deferred requests, it's impossible for an uninformed citizen to make an informed justification regarding the rejection/deferment. And since we will not see them, as they are considered classified and secret, and since, as mentioned above, the judges on the court appear to be competent, I yield to their decision.

quote:
"FISA is very important in the war on terror, but it doesn't provide the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of threat," Gonzales said.
This point has been addressed in almost all the previously posted articles. Surveillance can be started immediately, provided the court is petitioned within 72 hours, and almost all petitions (96.82906% under the current administration) have been granted. Again, as has also been brought up in those previous articles, Gonzales' statement is not a justification for the president to break the law. Even Colin Powell (in an article presented today and which will be addressed in full in a later post), though he supports eavesdropping, questions bypassing the court.

In a strange turnabout, toward the end of the article, I found the following statement:


quote:
Bamford, 59, a Vietnam-era Navy veteran, likens the Bush administration's domestic surveillance without court approval to Nixon-era abuses of intelligence agencies.
Go figure! That's tantamount to a contradiction of his earlier whining.

Perhaps the article's final statement (in line with all I've said, above (that there is no justification to the Bush/Cheney assault on our civil liberties and breaking the law)) sums it all up the best:

quote:
"NSA prides itself on learning the lessons of the 1970s and obeying the legal restrictions imposed by FISA," Bamford said. "Now it looks like we're going back to the bad old days again."
I only question, why then are they allowing themselves to be a part of it? Makes you kind of wonder if Bamford and the NSA might not really be against the administration's jusfications, too.
Posted by: DJ

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/26/05 11:56 PM

To respond to Ladybug's question, Richard Clarke who was the expert on terrorism at the NSA repeatedly warned Condi Rice, Cheney and Bush about imminent terrorist attacks, but no one took him seriously. The information was there.

[ December 26, 2005, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: DJ ]
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/27/05 12:05 AM

Ladybug and DJ, you are correct. They did have the information. Condi admitted so much in several tv interviews, specifically I remember her mentioning it in the 9/11 hearings. However, they looked on it as something that wasn't important or relevant. So it was ignored. I don't remember the name of the memo Condi referred to, though I do remember her saying the topic had something to do with al Qaeda wanting to use airplanes as missiles. If I come across it again, I'll post it. Thanks for reminding us of this.

[ December 27, 2005, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: norma

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/27/05 02:27 AM

In response to your words to me Vi, just so no one gets the wrong impression, i think (unfortunately) all nations and (unfortunately) many of us as individuals have dirty laundry lurking somewhere .. I think the quest you, others and myself are on is to learn from the past, so those mistakes are not repeated.
As individuals, as citizens of our own particular nation, or as citizens as the world, surely this is essential.

(i do not mean to imply any of you people as individual's have regrettable things in your past, it's just that i am in a catagory of those that do )

[ December 26, 2005, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: norma ]
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/27/05 04:26 AM

Norma, I agree with you entirely. I also have a past - which I learned a lot from, but it sets me apart from some of my family. I don't regret the things I did. I do regret if I hurt anyone in the process.

Now, I need to address the posting issue. Today before I posted my long post, I did not see Ladybug's response. It just wasn't there. So I posted mine and then saw hers. So I addressed it. In the meantime, DJ posted her response to Ladybug, but I never saw DJ's response. It wasn't there even though I did a refresh. I didn't find DJ's response until a few minutes ago.

I'm only mentioning this because if I miss addressing something someone said, and it seems that I'm addressing the wrong person, please forgive. I don't mean to leave anyone out.

Now I'm going to read the Colon Powell article to see if I need to comment on it, or if just adding a link will be sufficient.

Please feel free to add links to the articles you read. They will help us gain more rounded perspectives.
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/27/05 04:36 AM

Here’s the link to the Powell story. I think it’s pretty self explanatory.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/26/powell.ap/index.html

Powell supports eavesdropping but questions bypassing court

Monday, December 26, 2005;

quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday supported government eavesdropping to prevent terrorism but said a major controversy over presidential powers could have been avoided by obtaining court warrants.
Posted by: ladybug

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 03:31 AM

Thank you so much DJ.

I knew I had read many articles about this but it was a while back and I don't like to say something I'm not sure of if there is no back up.
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 03:55 AM

Thanks all for the input on beliefs and values. My apologies, Norma, for being US-centric. I should know better! LOL!

From everything that I've read, Vi has brought forth and my understanding of the Constitution of the US, it appears probable that the President broke the law as it stands.

Unfortunately, I've spent far too much of my time in courtrooms because I have child who has been in continual trouble. I have witnessed first-hand what is working and isn't working in the justice system. It is such a disembodied process. Having said that, it is the process we have and we have all agreed to support, or to work diligently to change.

Now we come to beliefs and values. I believe I am hearing two different beliefs being expressed on this thread. (If there are more, chime in!)

1. The President must operate within the laws of the U.S. -- no exception. If is suspected that he or she fails to obey the laws, he or she is subject to due process and a day in court. In the President's case, the Constitution defines that as impeachment.

2. The President must operate within the laws of the U.S. -- except in time of war and to protect U.S. citizens. If he or she fails to obey the laws, he or she has an opportunity to explain why the laws were broken. If the explanation is accepted by the people, then no impeachment proceedings are begun.

My belief falls with #1. And it doesn't matter to me which party the President belongs to. I hold the President to high standards.
Posted by: NHJackie

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/27/05 05:56 PM

The level of itellegence and knowledge I'm seeing here literally takes my breath away. I am learning so much from the well-espressed views on both sides of this discussion.

If only all political discussions everywhere were conducting with this level of respect and thought, we would probably all be better off.

Thank you to everyone who has helped teach me so many things I didn't understand before.
Posted by: norma

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/27/05 08:57 PM

According to his testimony during the 9/11 hearings, Richard Clarke, the former National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism,
had requested an 'urgent' meeting 'on January 24,2001' with very key persons in the White House to address the threat of terrorist attacks against US targets..... that urgent request
apparently was not granted until Sept. 4 2001.

[ December 27, 2005, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: norma ]
Posted by: Daisygirl

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/27/05 09:50 PM

I have a few random thoughts after skimming through some of the information listed above.

1. Just because there is an article on the internet, magazine, television or newspaper does not mean it is the gospel truth. The majority of these news outlets are biased and I did see some of that on some links listed.

2. Spying - I am glad President Bush approved spying on possible terrorists who are calling the U.S. from other countries. He is charged with the safety of millions of citizens and if anything should happen again on our land, his head will be the one to roll.

3. Nations hating us - Some countries do hate us because they are envious of our society, not our democracy, although that is the reason we are a thriving country. They love our clothes, music, movies, and celebrities, but as their people begin to adopt our "style" of living, they lose their own heritage. They envy our prosperity, especially since we are a young country in relation to many others.

4. Economy - Our economy is thriving and the dow jones average will probably hit 1200 before the end of the year, that's a good sign that things are just fine. The unemployment rate is only around 5% nationwide. More people own their homes than ever. And yes, there are home repossessions, but we can't have a law against stupidity. The housing market is fine. People have been speculating in that market but it is slowing and will be back to normal, which is not a bad thing. All is not perfect, but especially considering that we lost an entire city and a global economy is causing change to take place - you must admit, it's pretty good.

5. We are at war - never in our past history have we given prisoners of war rights to our judicial system. It would cause turmoil in the courts and cost a tremendous amount of time and money. These people who hate us and want to kill us are religous zealots who have been taught their entire lives to hate Americans. Why would we want to give them access to our system which they dispise?

6. I don't understand how people cannot see the similarities between Hitler and Hussain. We consider our soldiers heroes who freed the prisoners from concentration camps in Germany, but when atrocities take place in other countries, such as Iraq, some Americans say stuff like, "we can't save the world, or it's taking money away from our schools."

7. President Bush is not a liar. He is a good man and I have total confidence that his motives for any action he takes is for the protection and benefit of our people. I don't understand why so many have such a hate for our President. I wish they could take their hate glasses off and see the truth. Our people need to be more united and get past all this partisianship. What ever happened to the dignity of politics? Our enemies love what is going on in our political arena.

Daisygirl
Posted by: chatty lady

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/27/05 10:10 PM

I wish it would stay in that arena and stop mucking up this forum....I said it before and will say it again, no matter what any President does, especially George W. Bush, he's dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't....and yes our enemies do love this kind of crap.
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/27/05 11:31 PM

Daisygirl, Thanks for expressing your thoughts. I, for one, don't hate the president. I believe what we are doing here is discussing several sides of an issue. From statements the president himself has made, it appears (and is not yet proven) that he authorized wiretaps without FISA authority, even the authority he could get 72 hours after the wiretaps went into effect. For the most part, people in this particular thread haven't identified themselves as being from either party. We are American citizens having a discussion about current events.

Chatty Lady, I would respectfully ask that you leave those of us who wish to discuss this issue alone to discuss it in peace. There's a great deal of thinking going on here, wresting with questions which don't have easy answers. We are not "mucking up this forum."
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/27/05 11:57 PM

Daisy,
Very well said. Not that it will make a difference to those who are looking for reasons to belittle our country and attack our leaders, but thank you for standing up and stating it so well.

The FISA court may have the ability to approve things in 72 hours, but their record is much different as it applies to our present leadership. They have opposed and stalled every attempt by our President's to protect our country and it was all for political gain.

Since Truman, NSA has had the authority to listen to the foreign end of conversations, but not the American end and the terrorists knew that so they planned much of their destruction from within our country. And few of their conversations lasted 72 hours. They simply changed phones and identies.

We need to know what the terrorists are planning. And now that they know we can listen to the American end of their conversations they will find other ways to destroy us. The NYT should be prosecuted for treason for revealing this information in the midst of war.

The information about the violence against our country was there before 9/11. But because we only had one half the conversation, we could not determine where or when they would attack. As a result, thousands died.

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant as destructive as Hitler. He has killed thousands of his own people and thousands in other countries. We should all support a president who takes his responsibility to defend our country seriously.

Mr. Bush has not broken any laws. He has not perjured himself as other leaders have. He was authorized by Congress to take necessary measures to protect our country and he is doing just that. I applaud him.

As to Chatty stating her opinion, she has been a vital part of this site for a very long time and has as much right as anyone else to express her feelings.

smile

[ December 27, 2005, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: smilinize ]
Posted by: DJ

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 12:01 AM

I think this is the most level-headed political discussion yet to visit this web site. I don't understand why it's being referred to as "crap" or as something that gives comfort to our enemies.

Life in the 21st century is extremely complicated. The world is united in many ways -- economically, environmentally, and health, to name three ways -- and there's a tremendous diversity of culture and opinion in the world. In such a complex world, it's important to be able to examine issues from different angles and to consider other people's opinions rather than to automatically think that any one person has a monopoly on the truth. Even if President Bush were the smartest and kindest man in the world, he still wouldn't have such a monopoly.

The American system is one in which we are supposed to be an educated public so that we can intelligently govern ourselves. To do so we need to have solid information so it's great if we can talk about it intelligently rather than cast aspersions about the veracity of the sources.

We should be electing good people to represent us and a wise person to lead and gude the country. Unfortunately, corruption is rampant. Eisenhower warned us in 1961 to beware of the "military-industrial complex" but that's just what's at work in the world.
Posted by: chatty lady

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 12:09 AM

Just my observation and you're probably right Casey, everyone certainly has the right to speak her opinion (thanks Smile) its just that I've seen so many times that this type of discussion gets out of control, feelings get hurt and good people leave. I would hate to see that again but I guess thats life and lets face it there is no right or wrong answer to these discussioins anyway. I'll just stick to the posts I care about and maybe can be of assistance with....
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 12:22 AM

Chatty, please don't let anyone hush your beautiful voice. We all benefit from your straight forward observations.

smile
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 12:28 AM

Today I’d like to begin by reiterating my gratitude for those on this thread who have addressed this topic with honor and dignity. Again I will state, for any of you who don’t like talking politics and think this site is being ruined by this thread, you are free not to attend it. This country is about freedom of choice. This is Dotsie’s site. The choice is hers as to whether or not a topic is suited for this site. Dotsie is an honorable woman who provides us, at no cost, a place to meet and discuss things. I believe as long as we treat each other and a topic courteously she has no problem with the things we discuss.

Having a different opinion is welcome here. If your opinion differs please substantiate it. While it is true that just because something is written somewhere doesn’t make it so, when articles are written by the liberal as well as the conservative arms of the news media then we need to take them seriously. That is what is happening now. If you doubt this please thoroughly read the articles provided and the comments submitted by everyone on this thread, “skimming” will not work on a topic so profound as this. Then check out the political bias of those sources. The articles come from all varying sources. And when you do read this thread in it’s entirety, please read it with an open mind, as the rest of us have done.

Bush admits to the topic we are talking about on this thread, and we are discussing that topic. If you’ve been watching tv you’ve heard him admit these things. The issues brought up by the latest negative posts, we have already addressed and resolved. Thank you for your opinion. We are all free to express ourselves here with honor and dignity - free, honor and dignity being the operative words.

As a child I did not understand the meaning or importance of honor. Thanks to Gene Roddenberry and a Klingon named Warf, I learned a lot about it. On a site like this, in fact on a world scale, treating each other with honor, respect and dignity is key to our mutual growth and inner beauty. I thank you all for abiding in this positive realm.


The following is from an article in the New Yorker that was submitted to me by one of the thread participants. The article is not per se about the NSA, but is relevant because it addresses Bush's, Cheney's and Condi's lies - how they swear to one thing while doing just the opposite and how that infringes on innocent people's lives, this time impacting the life of what appears to be a Canadian citizen. The article references, among other things, a point I brought up in my post on the article offered by smilinize - guilt by association without the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Mostly, however, it addresses how rendition works and how it's been used, on actual terrorists and innocents, alike.

The New Yorker article is rather long, and I reiterate, it explains the facts/atrocities, the evolution of rendition and many actual horrific deeds that have taken place - too many to address them all individually. It is recommended reading for those who can stomach a brutal truth:

OUTSOURCING TORTURE
The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.
by JANE MAYER

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6


An additional news story was from Reuters and was only a reiteration of the article smilinize submitted but without the comments by Bamford.

Secret surveillance up since 9/11
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20051227/pl_nm/security_eavesdropping_dc_6


In conclusion, for now, I would say we are not at war with another nation. We are at war with a concept, the concept of terrorism, and that battle appears to have put some of us at war with each other - a great pity and a sad day.
Posted by: chatty lady

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 12:45 AM

Not the case Smile at all but my ex is a paid Political Historian and I wrote for one of the largest newspapers in D.C. for three years and have seen and heard it all. Its just sad to me that in a grand country such as ours we are given a choice between two candidates and in some cases, neither is a good choice. What then, we have to pick the least of the two worst and pray. It seems to me that no matter who we elect its just not good enough and certainly can't please whom ever voted for the other guy...I keep hoping above all hope someone worthy of our trust will appear on the horizon and we will be saved BUT???? Actually I think its a good thing that women are taking an active roll in this country and its problems, I just hope they are really studying all the facts and not just mimicking the newscasters, thats where the danger lies....
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 12:56 AM

By the fact that everyone is coming up with their own comments and opinions means we are not mimicking the newscasters. We are not mimicking the newscasters - we are making what they say available so we can discuss it. As you can see we are bringing in articles from all sides. And we have not attacked those who love Bush. We have not directed profanity, derogation or any variation thereof at any thread participants. That is not our way.
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 01:41 AM

Which of the referenced articles is from the conservative branch of the news media? Is there a conservative branch?

I don't know what you are saying President Bush and those under him admitted. He is not a liar and never has been. He tapped the phone calls of suspected terrorists and he said so. I and many other Americans believe he was right to do just that. Those who revealed that information to our enemies while we are war are viewed as traitors by many patriotic Americans.

Please be specific as to what issue was resolved on this topic. If you mean that Mr. Bush authorized tapping the phones of suspected terrorists, he was authorized by Congress to do what was necessary to defend our country and tapping those phone calls is necessary if we are to avert another 9/11. If that type of wire taps had been in place before 9/11, we might never have experienced the murder of thousands of our citizens.

Refering to statements by our leaders as lies is a conclusion, not a fact and it veers from the dignity of debate. Most of the articles referenced in this discussion are examples of conclusions reached by the liberal media unsupported by fact. Newsmen are supposed to report fact. It should be left up to the reader to reach conclusion.

I have only read the headline of the most recently referenced article, but I am personally delighted to know that secret surveillance is up since 9/11. We are at war. If surveilance of my phone calls will avert another mass murder, go ahead and listen to all my calls. Only those with something to hide and those looking for excuses to attack our leaders fear surveilance. I am one of the first to defend our freeedoms, but no one is free to plot another attack on our country. Nor should they be.

The terrorists themselves have repeatedly stated they represent the nation of Islam. Just as Texas and New york are states of the United States, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran are states of the Islamic nation. The real issue, however, is that we are at war. We are free to say what we like, but attacking our country from within is simply wrong.

Only when one is losing a debate is it necessary to use insults. There is nothing undignified about differing opinions. No one has called anyone a name or insulted anyone except our President who has been called various names including liar.

And saying 'prove it' is not an insult.


smile

[ December 27, 2005, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: smilinize ]
Posted by: DJ

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 02:19 AM

I scrolled back through the posts looking for where there has been namecalling but haven't found anything. I saw where Casey said that Bush "is not a liar," not that he _is_ a liar. The discussion has been mostly civil. Can you help me out, Smile?

As for the liberal/conservative nature of the press -- this subject wears me out. This is for everyone out there: Please define what you mean by liberal and conservative press, then give examples of who you mean and why you say that. In relation to the rest of the world, the United States press is centrist with a conservative tilt. It's absolutely pro-business and pro-capitalist. By most definitions, that's a conservative tilt, believe it or not!

[ December 28, 2005, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: DJ ]
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 03:01 AM

What President Bush said was that he had authorized wiretaps that were not submitted to FISA, either before or after the fact. He has stated that this authority was given to him under the declaration of war on Iraq. There is some dispute about that, particularly from Tom Dashle, former Senate Majority Leader.

This thread has been discussing whether or not we believe Mr. Bush did something illegal. Also, whether or not it is ok, given the times that he authorized wiretaps on people without following the letter of the law.

I can understand both points of view. From my perspective (which is only my perspective), I believe that we have courts which were put there to preserve a balance of power in the United States government. I count myself as a patriotic American, someone who loves, supports and defends my country. I also believe that, as an American, I have a right to free speech (as does everyone else) by virture of the first amendment: "Congress shall mkae no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I have neither something to hide nor am I looking for an excuse to attack our leaders. Nor do I fear surveillance. I object to surveillance which is not authorized by a court according to the laws of this country. And that is true for me whether or not we are at war. And I understand there are those who don't agree with me on that point.

I am also not attacking my country. This is a great country with great people. For over 200 years we've had changes of power with only one major civil war. And we are still together. How amazing is that!

I also don't know where any insults have occurred. I'll go back over my statements, but I don't believe I have insulted anyone, including Mr. Bush.
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 03:43 AM

To be specific, here are the posts in which Mr. Bush and other leaders are accused of lying. Many other insults and accusations are found throughout the posts and in the referenced material.

Vi Dec. 20
George is teaching our children that lying and cheating are okay, and that if you have enough power you can get away with anything.

Vi Dec. 23
lies perpetrated by our government and specifically at this time the executive branch of the government.

Vi Dec. 24
need to have answered truthfully, not by those dancing around their lies.

Vi Dec. 24
Bush’s explanation is riddled with lies.

Vi Dec. 25
If this information is true, here are two more lies and a bunch more deceit.

Vi Dec. 28
is relevant because it addresses Bush's, Cheney's and Condi's lies - how they swear to one thing while doing just the opposite

I can defend my statement. However, this is going nowhere. Believe what you like. No matter what Mr. Bush does, he will be attacked and insulted by those whose mind is already made up.

smile
Posted by: DJ

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 04:00 AM

Smile,
I stand corrected.

As to your final point,

"No matter what Mr. Bush does, he will be attacked and insulted by those whose mind is already made up"

I take exception. People can disagree with Bush's actions and never attack nor insult him. People can also make up their minds along the way -- in fact, I know some who voted for Bush but don't like what he's been doing the last few years. So their minds weren't "already" made up, but they were made up along the way.

[p.s. -- I had to leave in a rush before finishing this -- saying that someone has lied is not the same as calling someone a liar. The former refers to an action while the other is name calling.]

[ December 28, 2005, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: DJ ]
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 04:09 AM

And there are others who did not vote for Mr. Bush and now support him. You don't hear about them, but I know several personally.

smile
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 05:28 AM

To add to what DJ and Casey have said, and in response to your statements, I submit the following:

quote:
Which of the referenced articles is from the conservative branch of the news media? Is there a conservative branch?
I would think the Christian Science Monitor qualifies as being conservative. MSNBC and FOX News are also conservative. They definitely tread lightly around Bush and his group - yet still they question.

As for me saying that Bush lies, I submit again the following article - please read it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10578257/site/newsweek/

quote:
I have only read the headline of the most recently referenced article, but I am personally delighted to know that secret surveillance is up since 9/11 . . . Only those with something to hide and those looking for excuses to attack our leaders fear surveilance.
Are you equally delighted to know that congress considers his method’s legality to be questionable? Do you not care that the president may have broken the law? Are you unwilling to consider that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Is Bush above the law? As was stated by one senator in more than one of the included articles, “He is President George Bush, not King George Bush.” If you think sometimes the law doesn’t apply to Bush, that is your choice. But many of us do care about the law. That’s what we are discussing here. Participate if you like, but if you are not willing to read the articles presented, you are not qualified to comment on them. And by the way, I also agree he was right to eavesdrop, only I think it should be done legally, otherwise we are all in jeopardy. The legality is to be determined by hearings, but I believe that if his actions are found to be legal, and he is allowed to spy on us at any time for any reason, then we have no freedom here whatsoever, and this exercise in democracy would then be a complete farce. It’s not a matter of whether or not someone has something to hide, it’s a matter of adhering to the Constitution. Also, it’s naive to think that the terrorists don’t know that their communications are being tapped. They aren’t stupid. Nothing was given away by making this public, except perhaps that the method Bush used to do the eavesdropping might possibly be illegal.

Read! Read the articles - in full. Then talk about them and raise your question. Until then I can only consider your opinion to be an opinion. Information is not an anathema to democracy, it is it’s substance.

quote:
Please be specific as to what issue was resolved on this topic. If you mean that Mr. Bush authorized tapping the phones of suspected terrorists, he was authorized by Congress to do what was necessary to defend our country and tapping those phone calls is necessary if we are to avert another 9/11. If that type of wire taps had been in place before 9/11, we might never have experienced the murder of thousands of our citizens.
If you had read the articles in detail, you would have seen that those members of congress whom Bush had said authorized his method, all denied it. And as for information from al Qaeda being available prior to 9/11, it was; Bush and his administration ignored it. Condi Rice admitted this, and Richard Clarke, the terror advisor, tried for 8 months to give the Bush administration this information, but he was ignored - the administration didn’t think the information was important. There is no excuse for their negligence. They were also briefed by the Clinton administration on this matter. We considered these items, and others, within the thread resolved in as much as the participants had discussed them and opinions were given and responded to. Had you read the thread thoroughly, including the articles, you would know this.

quote:
Refering to statements by our leaders as lies is a conclusion, not a fact and it veers from the dignity of debate. Most of the articles referenced in this discussion are examples of conclusions reached by the liberal media unsupported by fact. Newsmen are supposed to report fact. It should be left up to the reader to reach conclusion.
Again, as I stated above, see the article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10578257/site/newsweek/

As you can see in the article these are not jumped-to conclusions. These things actually happened/are happening.

quote:
Only those with something to hide and those looking for excuses to attack our leaders fear surveilance. I am one of the first to defend our freeedoms, but no one is free to plot another attack on our country. Nor should they be.
All innocent citizens should fear illegal surveillance. It is a tactic of Big Brother, and once we loose one of our freedoms, we loose them all. Those who are willing to give up some of their constitutional freedoms don’t deserve any. You are not defending our freedoms by giving them up.

quote:
The terrorists themselves have repeatedly stated they represent the nation of Islam. Just as Texas and New york are states of the United States, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran are states of the Islamic nation. The real issue, however, is that we are at war. We are free to say what we like, but attacking our country from within is simply wrong.
The terrorists may say what they like. However, the Islamic nations all say that the terrorists do not speak for them. They say that the terrorists speak only for a radical wing of the Islamic nation. They do not speak for all of Iran, all of Iraq or all of any Islamic country. I see no connection in referring to New York, Texas or any other state within the United States as being analogous to the terrorist’s claiming affiliation to the peaceful Islamic world. Islamic people are beautiful people. They believe in one God. Allah means “the God.” They’re kind of like us. In fact, they are just like us, lovely human beings. It’s the terrorists which give the otherwise good Islamic people a bad name, and we apply a guilt by association, which is wrong. As for saying we are free to say what we like, but attacking our country from within is simply wrong, is incorrect. This thread does not attack our country. This thread discusses what appear to be possible illegal actions. To say that this discussion is wrong is to discredit our constitution which guarantees us the right to hold these discussions.

quote:
Only when one is losing a debate is it necessary to use insults. There is nothing undignified about differing opinions. No one has called anyone a name or insulted anyone except our President who has been called various names including liar.
No one on this thread, except for one recent entry, has thrown an insult. No one has called your differing opinion “crap”. This isn’t a matter of losing a debate, it appears to be a matter of not being able to accept someone else’s opinion. We accept yours and discuss it with you. And no one has insulted our president. We’ve only brought up what appear to be facts and discussed them, using our own opinions. You have added your opinions, and we accept them. We are now discussing them. No one has won or lost. This is not about winning or losing. In fact, it is not even a debate. It is simply a discussion thread. It wasn’t turned into a debate until later today. I would like it to return to and remain a civilized, mature discussion.
Posted by: Daisygirl

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 02:59 PM

I heard something very disturbing on the news this morning. The guy who planned to bomb the Brooklyn bridge was discovered by surveillance and now his lawyer is going to try to fight the conviction in court just like a criminal case.

Thanks NY Times.

I'm not posting or reading any longer on this thread. I just didn't want the BWS website to become a blowhorn for the Bush bashers with no defence of our President.

Have a great day!
Daisygirl
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 04:32 PM

Sigh....
There is no one on this thread who is a "Bush basher."
O.K. Back to the discussion and to follow on to the point that Daisygirl did bring up. If Mr. Bush's actions are deemed illegal, does that mean all cases can be brought into criminal court? Or, because they are war crimes, do they go to the "secret" courts?
Another one of our freedoms is that we are innocent until proven guilty. I know terrorism frightens us all, but it is still not in line with some of the other deaths that we live with every day, yet we are not complaining about. I've been reading Jimmy Carter's new book. In it he states, "In the most recent year for which data are available, handguns killed 334 people in Australia, 197 in Great Britain, 183 in Sweden, 83 in Japan, 54 in Ireland, 1,034 in Canada, and 30,419 in the United States." Somewhat significantly fewer people (all of them valuable, wonderful human beings) have been killed by terrorists.

Another reason that I am opposed to wiretaps which are unsupported by a court of law is that I am a life coach. Much of my work is done over the phone. People tell me their most private issues and feelings. No one else should be listening in. Many of my fellow coaches have clients who are overseas. Their privacy should also be protected, unless there is sufficient reason, provable at least in the FISA court, that the phone should be tapped.

Without these protections, it becomes, as my favorite mystery novels say, "a fishing expedition."

Peace, all.
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 04:47 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Casey:
Sigh....
There is no one on this thread who is a "Bush basher."

For there to be no Bush bashers on this thread, there is sure a lot of Bush bashing going on.

No more posting for me either. If there is a point, it has surely been made by now. Over and over.

smile
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 05:39 PM

Double sigh...
Disagreeing with the actions of Mr. Bush is not "bashing" him.
A question for those who support the alledgedly illegal wiretaps: What does this do, specifically, for the war on terrorism, given that the majority of wiretaps the president has requested have been authorized?
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 07:53 PM

http://socalpundit.com/blog/index.php/2005/12/27/evidence-supporting-need-to-circumvent-fisa-on-wire-tapping
Posted by: Pattyann

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 09:11 PM

The right to disagree isn't bashing. The need to hold our leader to the standards of law of the land isn't asking too much
Chatty had a good point- we vote for the one who we think will do the least harm.I think in order to get to the highest office in this land a candidate has to sell too much of his soul- to big business, to party leaders.But they still need ultimately to be responsible to our constitution- otherwise we fall in the same catagories as the dictators we all too often stick our military might in to topple
What is a liberal- or a conservative- I think at this point it's just the nasty names we call the other side
Vi, thank you for this information- and thank all the rest of you that this has not degenerated into talking about politicians hair or sex lives
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 09:50 PM

Smilinize, I looked at the site which you posted. The first paragraph concurs with what we are saying, that President Bush decided to bypass the panel.

"Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court’s approval."

The reason given was that he was unable to get the wiretaps that he wished.

"To win a court-approved wiretap, the government must show “probable cause” that the target of the surveillance is a member of a foreign terrorist organization or foreign power and is engaged in activities that “may” involve a violation of criminal law.

Faced with that standard, Bamford said, the Bush administration had difficulty obtaining FISA court-approved wiretaps on dozens of people within the United States who were communicating with targeted al-Qaida suspects inside the United States."

So, I believe we can all agree that Mr. Bush circumvented the FISA courts, yes?

Now come the other questions.
- Is it illegal to circumvent these courts?
- If it is, would it have been better for Mr. Bush to work to amend the law, rather than breaking it?
- If it is legal, where is the authority giving the president the right to do this?
- Even if it is illegal, is there a majority of American citizens willing to accept the reasons which Mr Bush is giving for bypassing the court?
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/28/05 10:53 PM

Hmmm, interesting conversation you ladies have going on.

First to address the link Smile provide - it is a blog quote of the same article in the link she provided in support of Bush's actions. You can see my comments on that article in one of my previous posts.

Pattyann and Casey, as usual your comments show outstanding insights.

My search of today's news provided nothing new on the subject. Though, in defense of Mr. Bush I did come across one article that indicates a possible good judgement on his part, specifically, read the following:


Chief Justice Roberts wins early praise
Lighter tone, camaraderie at U.S. Supreme Court
By Bill Mears

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/28/scotus.roberts/index.html

Of course, it's still too early to know for sure, and this is a side bar to our discussion, but it appears that he may have picked a good chief justice. (It would be ironic if this Bush problem goes to the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Roberts was one of the justices to find him guilty.)

And lastly, I am a writer by profession. As such, much of my time is spent developing my craft and peddling the results. Lately, I have spent so much time on this thread that it has interferred with this work. Yesterday, for example, finding stories, weeding through them, making comments and responding to comments took from 10 am to 9:50 pm. It left no time for the other things that are important to me. (Thank goodness my husband is an excellent cook.)

All of us have to eat - so for now, I have to take temporary leave of this thread and start doing some major peddling. January is one of the best times to do this.

So, enjoy the discussion, and if there is something that you absolutely need me to comment on, send a private message and I will do my best to oblige. I'll be back as soon as I'm done.

[ December 28, 2005, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: ladybug

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/29/05 04:44 PM

Thanks to you Vi, as an Ohioan, I am now aware of the bill currently on Bob Taft, our governor's desk.

The Ohio Patriot Act will allow police to arrest anyone in a public place if they refuse to give their name and address even if they are not doing anything wrong!

Sounds to me like Hitler's Europe where you had to "show papers." For us who live in Ohio, we hope our governor does not sign this bill. At least from my own perspective, I hope he does not sign this bill.
Posted by: Bluebird

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/29/05 05:03 PM

That is a terrible thing, when the police can do that. A couple of years ago in NY, my 16 year old was walking down the street with his friends on the night before Halloween (before curfew). He had a backpack on and the cops told him he had to open it and show them what was inside! Of course, he did have several dozen eggs but the point was, the cop knew my son didn't know his rights. He had the right to refuse opening his backpack which was on his body. I was very upset about this violation.
Posted by: ladybug

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/29/05 06:11 PM

Regarding President Bush's wiretap case: Is there any evidence that the imperative to protect Americans trumped other interests as much as it did civil liberties?
Has the president called for a rollback of tax cuts for the rich to provide funds for port security and first responders?
Has he declared the securing of chemical plants and hazardous rail cargo more important than the protection of corporate profits and prerogatives?
Has he decried congressional pork that displaced risk-based homeland security funding? The answer is no.

Just look at the failing grade the 9/11 commission members give the president on protecting Americans. Where is the evidence of the all-consuming urgency of the president, impelled by those terifying daily national security briefings, to defend the homeland at whatever burden, even for the wealthy and powerful?
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/29/05 10:02 PM

While I am busy with my authoring activities, my husband, who believes equally in this thread, has volunteered to take time out from his writing and website building activities to help keep us informed on relevant happenings. (Hopefully, the temporary assistance of a "Boomer Male" will not offend anyone.) The following is his summary:

Item 1:

CNN Headline news reported on TV that if you have visited the NSA site recently, you probably had a tracking cookie downloaded to your computer. The use of these cookies was previously legally banned. The NSA said they weren't aware of the tracking cookie being used - it was part of an upgrade to their website. If you visited the NSA site, you can check to see if you have these cookies by going to your browser's tools/Internet option menu.

To delete a cookie

1. In Internet Explorer, on the Tools menu, click Internet Options.
2. On the General tab, click Settings, and then click View files.
3. Select the cookie you want to delete, and then, on the File menu, click Delete.

Yahoo news also carried a brief article on the NSA cookies:

NSA stops using web cookies on NSA.gov after privacy protests
Snip from AP story:

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/29/nsa_stops_using_web_.html

quote:
". . . it does show a general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they (NSA) are not even following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy."

The NYTimes also carried the story:
Spy Agency Removes Illegal Tracking Files
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/29/national/29cookies.html


Item 2:

Last night, the TV news also reported that the intrepid would-be terrorist (discovered through NSA wiretaps) who was going to attempt to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge by cutting it apart with a blow torch is filing a lawsuit against the US. This could be interesting - if it is found that his rights of privacy were infringed, it would be the first instance indicating that the NSA unwarranted wiretaps are actually illegal.


Item 3:

This correlates with item 2 - An interesting political cartoon by Pat Oliphant. See:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20051228/cx_po_uc/po20051228


Item 4:

Some comments had been made on the thread in defense of a strong and robust economy. The following is from CNN's website, business section:

Risky business in 2006? Could be
http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/29/news/economy/slowdown_2006/index.htm?cnn=yes

quote:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - The bond market's signal of slower economic growth ahead sent shivers through financial markets this week and raised questions about the strength of the current expansion.
Personal comment: This article may also be a reflection of how well the "corporate citizen", as compared to the average "private citizen", has been treated by the administration.


Item 5:

This article is not specific to the eavesdropping issue. It does, however, address Vi's recent statement about "power corrupts". The article is 7 pages long, nevertheless, it's a very interesting side-bar:

Abramoff probe spells trouble for Congress

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10621077/

quote:
"This could be the Enron of lobbying," Ring told the colleague.

Item 6:

This article addresses Bush Administration restrictions placed on the 40 year old "Freedom of Information Act". You may have to be a registered member (registration is free) of the NYTimes to actually get access to this story:

The Mounting Powers of Secrecy
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/29/opinion/29thu4.html?th&emc=th&oref=login


quote:
At the heart of this thickening veil are direct presidential orders and former Attorney General John Ashcroft's blanket assurance of legal defense to any agency erring on the side of secrecy in sealing off documents. This reversed the Clinton administration's "presumption of disclosure" when it came to public requests. The 9/11 commission has already pointed out that this general retreat from the intent of the law hardly discourages terrorists; in fact, it was the government's internal failure to share information that contributed to that tragedy.
That's all he came across today. He hopes you enjoy the read and wishes all of the Ladies a pleasant day.

Ladybug and Bluebird, you both made good points. Thank you for continuing the thread. My tasks are going well and progressing quickly. I'll be back in full force as soon as I can.

[ December 29, 2005, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/29/05 11:59 PM

Thanks, surrogate!
The Brooklyn Bridge suspect does raise some interesting points about the legality of the whole process. However, due to the nature of terrorism -- random acts of violence -- what are the other alternatives to wire taps -- legal or illegal?

I believe one of the things that has allowed all of this to happen is our isolation from one another, followed swiftly by the growing desire of people to judge others and find them lacking.
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/30/05 04:19 PM

I just read this in the Washington Post. It really does cut to the heart of the matter.

"The Bush administration did not seek a broad debate on whether commander-in-chief powers can trump international conventions and domestic statutes in our struggle against terrorism," said Radsan, the former CIA lawyer, who is a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minn. "They could have separated the big question from classified details to operations and had an open debate. Instead, an inner circle of lawyers and advisers worked around the dissenters in the administration and one-upped each other with extreme arguments."

So I would ask the group: Do you believe that the commander-in-chief powers can trump international law and domestic statutes in our struggle against terrorism? Why or why not?
Posted by: Pattyann

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/30/05 07:59 PM

Today in the paper I was totally amazed to see that the white house is launching an investigation into who leaked the fact that the president is bypassing the courts over wiretaps- seems a little like the schoolyard bully wanting to know who snitched- another special investigator our tax dollars are wasted on
Posted by: ladybug

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/30/05 09:37 PM

What a waste indeed!
Posted by: norma

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/30/05 10:09 PM

Pattyann... I am probably wrong here, but as i understand it, when the former US ambassador, Joseph Wilson finally questioned in a public newspaper, the statement by President Bush in
his 2003 State of the Union Address, that: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant amounts of uranium from Africa"...... the position of Wilson's wife, as a CIA agent was leaked, and that leak ended up in the current charges against VP Cheney's top aide L.(scooter)Libby.

Apart from leaking security information, there appeared to be an attempt to deflect from the message, by 'shooting the messenger', with this leak about Wilson's wife ...... does the investigation that you are referring to, seem to be in the same category?

[ December 30, 2005, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: norma ]
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/30/05 11:59 PM

I agree with all of you. It is another deflection attack. It's just like before the elections, when things started shifting towards democrats gaining points, all of a sudden there was another terror alert to distract us from the valid points the democrats were making. The republicans are just great at setting up smoke screens, and it's time we started turning on the fan and shot the "stuff" back at them. Good job, ladies, all your points and comments are good.

Casey, thanks for bringing in the article from the Washington Post

Casey said:

quote:
So I would ask the group: Do you believe that the commander-in-chief powers can trump international law and domestic statutes in our struggle against terrorism? Why or why not?
Apparently Bush has used his "power" to trump international law and domestic statutes. Do you mean "can" or should be allowed to? My answer is, if someone died and made him King George or Dictator George he can and will use his power to do whatever he likes. But this is a democracy, a government by, of and for the people. The president is, therefore, a servant of the people, not the other way around. In a democracy there must be checks and balances or there is no democracy, and we need to stop pretending that we have one. There our provisions in our constitution to provide for the checks and balances even in times of war. Both the Justice Department and the Congress have been provided ways to participate in situations such as these. This has been addressed earlier in this forum. Personally, I believe that no one person or group of people is wise enough and altruistic enough to be trusted with that kind of power. That's why the checks and balances must continue, and we, the people, must ensure that they do.


My husband's summary for the day:

Item 1:

This is from an email I received from a friend. Read the article and decide for yourself if this is a boon or a bane.

Are You Being Tracked?
http://www.alternet.org/story/29890/


Items 2, 2A and 2B:

2 - this is a well presented article with arguments from both sides.
Inquiry into leak of NSA spying program launched
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/30/nsa.leak/index.html

2A - Doesn't really say anything new other than it is the NSA who is requesting the probe. It doesn't say who in the NSA did the requesting or whether the NSA was urged to request it. It also doesn't give arguments against the administrations actions.

Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20051230/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/domestic_spying_probe_7


2B - A similar article to the one presented by CNN (Item 2), also includes comments by both sides.
Justice Dept. to probe leak of spy program
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10651154/


Item 3:

This item has absolutely nothing to do with Bush, NSA or spying - I just thought you might enjoy it, considering the name of this site: "Boomer Women Speak". I wonder, is she a member????

N.J. woman enjoys celebrity of being 1st baby boomer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051230/ts_usatoday/njwomanenjoyscelebrityofbeing1stbabyboomer


Item 4:


Some lamentations from the Christian Science Monitor summarizing 2005.

Saying goodbye has never been so sweet
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20051230/cm_csm/yschorr30

quote:
The Iraq war was a tragedy in danger of becoming a disaster, as the Bush administration pressed its efforts to assemble a parliament and a government and avert a civil war.

quote:
It was also not a good year for civil liberties. We heard the disclosure of the wiretapping of Americans without seeking warrants and learned about the secret prisons abroad for terror suspects and the mistreatment of prisoners under interrogation.
That's all he could find for today.

[ January 03, 2006, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 12/31/05 11:12 PM

So much has happened this year. There are so many things we've learned, a lot of which tell me some elements of humanity are functioning far below their capacity. I'm not talking about innate intellectual ability here. I'm talking about individual progression along the path of becoming a better person, a higher soul.

Below are news items for the day - compliments of the lovely soul who shares my life.

Item 1:

From the NYTimes - yesterday they were silent on the matter; today they are not. This 2 page article is recommended reading.:
Criminal Inquiry Opens Into Spying Leak
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/31/politics/31inquire.html?th&emc=th

Personal comment:: I believe the following could raise a bit of conjecture:

quote:
"The leaking of classified information is a serious issue," said the spokesman, Trent Duffy.

"The fact is that Al Qaeda's playbook is not printed on Page 1, and when America's is, it has serious ramifications. You don't need to be Sun Tzu to understand that," he said, referring to the Chinese warrior who wrote "The Art of War."

The president last week denounced in strong language the leaking of information about the agency's program, saying: "My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."

Where is the administrations denouncement of the Valerie Plame leak - especially considering that Libby has been indicted, the investigation is still ongoing with possible implications for Rove, Bush's claim that no one on his staff was involved in that leak and his promise to "take action" against anyone who was involved? I may be wrong, but I see this as Bush's ongoing "diversion and deceit" tactics from the "real news" - in this case, that Bush may have broken the law with his unwarranted eavesdropping. For those who believe Bush can do no wrong, this is just another rallying point for them to jump on the bandwagon - a wagon that continually runs on flat tires.

quote:
"President Bush broke the law and lied to the American people when he unilaterally authorized secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "But rather than focus on this constitutional crisis, Attorney General Gonzales is cracking down on critics of his friend and boss. Our nation is strengthened, not weakened, by those whistle-blowers who are courageous enough to speak out on violations of the law.

"Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, said his group believed "the priority at this point for the Department of Justice should be the appointment of an independent prosecutor to determine whether federal wiretap laws were violated" by the security agency program, not the leak inquiry.

An additional point of interest:

quote:
Tom Devine, legal director of the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit law firm that defends whistle-blowers, said his group would not object to a limited investigation of the leak of classified information. "But if they do a blanket witch hunt, which I fear," he said, "it would trample all over good government laws" intended to protect government workers who expose wrongdoing.

"The whole reason we have whistle-blower laws is so that government workers can act as the public's eyes and ears to expose illegality or abuse of power," Mr. Devine said.

And here's a bit of conjecture. Cheney says he can't talk about it, yet he can admit to the events happening (as long as he can do some "finger pointing and criticism").

quote:
While President Bush has focused his ire on whoever leaked the information, Vice President Cheney, in remarks to reporters on Dec. 20, was critical of The Times as well. Reiterating that the administration had asked the newspaper not to publish the article, Mr. Cheney said: "Eventually they ran it. I think that's unfortunate. I think it damages national security."

A Justice Department official, asked whether the investigation would examine the newspaper's publication of the information in addition to any government employees who might have leaked it, said he could not comment on any aspect of the investigation.

Item 1A: MSNBC's article on the above:
Justice Dept. to probe leak of spy program
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10651154/


Item 2: Again from the NYTimes - not specifically about NSA or eavesdropping, but rather, "favoring big-money politics over the voters."
Conspiring Against the Voters
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/31/opinion/31sat3.html?th&emc=th

quote:
By endorsing them, the president has finally shown his commitment to bipartisanship in the worst of ways: by installing another undistinguished group of factotums to referee the democratic process.

Item 3: Again from the NYTimes. A 2 page article on Bush's plans for the future - the good(?), the bad and the ugly - recommended reading. To me, it shows the gullibility of many of his followers to empty words on distorted principles, but what do I know? . . . I'm only coming to my own conclusions, based on reported statements.

President Uses a Quiet Vacation To Prepare an Ambitious Agenda
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/politics/01bush.html


Item 4: From USA Today. Again in reply to how "great" our economy is doing.

Wall Street is road to nowhere for indexes
http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2005-12-30-stocks_x.htm?csp=24

quote:
This year was marked by skyrocketing energy prices, a slowing economy, hot-and-cold inflation threats and the Federal Reserve steadily raising interest rates — all of which made investors nervous over the state of the economy and kept stocks volatile but ultimately little changed since the end of 2004.
Item 5: From Reuters, and again in reply to how "great" our economy is doing.

Are bears roaming Broad & Wall?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051231/bs_nm/column_stocks_outlook_dc

quote:
Instead, thin volume led to volatile movements in stock prices, while crude oil futures climbed back above $60 a barrel, and the bond market began to behave as if the U.S. economy faces trouble.
An additional quote:

quote:
DANGEROUS CURVE

On Tuesday, the two-year U.S. Treasury note's yield rose above the benchmark 10-year Treasury note's yield, inverting the yield curve for the first time in five years.

Previous inversions have typically signaled a slowing economy or recession.

In the week to come, investors will likely be mulling over whether this time around, the inverted yield curve means the economy is headed for a slowdown or whether heavy foreign buying of U.S. Treasury debt has distorted its meaning.

Personal comment: The article also mentions that Christmas spending did not turn out to be what retailers had hoped (except maybe for Walmart). Could it be that the economy is so "great" that average people like you and me couldn't afford to spend much? Also, some may say the stock market is not an indicator of the state of the economy, but if your 401k and your company pension plan and most other aspects of your savings are tied directly or indirectly to the stock market, I can't help but wonder . . . .


Item 5A: Again from Reuters, but on something that will definitely effect the economy.

Fuel rules mean no relief for oil prices in 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051230/bs_nm/energy_outlook_oil_dc


Item 6: The year in review. I came across too many "year in review" articles to start listing all of them. They all touched on the items in this thread. I suggest you read a few on your own - a trend is sure to quickly emerge.


Item 7: An additional few thoughts on yesterday's Abramoff article - "tangled is the web we weave . . . . "
An extensive web of financial ties
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10657504/from/RS.2/


Item 8: This story is not about "cookies" like the NSA used. It is about "bugs" the White House website leaves on your computer when you visit the site. Either way, I still see it as an unwarranted invasion.
White House to keep using Web tracking
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10644090/

quote:
The White House’s site uses what’s known as a Web bug — a tiny graphic image that’s virtually invisible — to anonymously keep track of who’s visiting and when. The bug is sent by a server maintained by an outside contractor, WebTrends Inc., and lets the traffic-analysis company know that another person has visited a specific page on the site.
That's it for today. have a pleasant day, Ladies.
:-P)


It is heartening to find other women who are willing to explore this topic. Thank you for your interest and participation. Here's hoping the coming year brings light to all the dark places, to the places where illegal and harmful things are being done in secret, so we can clear them up and move forward toward a positive future.

Vi
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/02/06 01:04 AM

My query letters are in the mail, and it's back to business as usual for me. I thank my dear husband for his help.

Given the amount of information presented in the last three posts, you may feel overwhelmed. But here it is for your perusal.

Item 1: From the NYTimes.

Could this be part of the reason Ashcroft was replaced by Gonzales?

(You may need to be registered at the NYTimes to read this story. Registration is free - only needs a made up ID and password, email addr is so they know where to send the confirmation and (if you chose it) the daily headline summary.)

Justice Deputy Resisted Parts of Spy Program
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/politics/01spy.html?th&emc=th&oref=login

quote:
A top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to its continued use amid concerns about its legality and oversight, according to officials with knowledge of the tense internal debate. The concerns appear to have played a part in the temporary suspension of the secret program.

The concerns prompted two of President Bush's most senior aides - Andrew H. Card Jr., his chief of staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House counsel and now attorney general - to make an emergency visit to a Washington hospital in March 2004 to discuss the program's future and try to win the needed approval from Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gallbladder surgery, the officials said.

Additional comment by the Times:

quote:
It is unclear whether the White House ultimately persuaded Mr. Ashcroft to give his approval to the program after the meeting or moved ahead without it.
(In another article, below, it is stated that Ashcroft did not give the okay. His deputy - acting as Attorney General in Ashcroft's absence - did after a private meeting with Bush/Cheney.)

And:

quote:
Several senior government officials have said that when the special operation first began, there were few controls on it. Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with it, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation, officials have said.
Could it be that Ashcroft wasn't "quite" the puppet many thought him to be and actually had some redeeming qualities (other than a fair singing voice)?

The following story from Newsweek through MSNBC lends more insight (they said that Ashcroft did not okay the program) It is an excellent article raising a number of good points - too many to quote. It's 4 pages long, and definitely worth reading!

Full Speed Ahead
After 9/11, Bush and Cheney pressed for more power and got it. Now, predictably, the questions begin. Behind the NSA spying furor.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663996/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/


And here's a little tidbit on what's being done (at least to a degree) with the gleaned spy data. Read it to the end to see how this processing of "innocent" data has been used in the past. Almost makes you wonder who's the terrorist.


NSA gave other agencies surveillance data
Information from wiretapping was processed, cross-checked
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10667276/

A point of concern:

quote:
Since the revelation last month that President Bush had authorized the NSA to intercept communications inside the United States, public concern has focused primarily on the legality of the NSA eavesdropping. Less attention has been paid to, and little is known about, how the NSA's information may have been used by other government agencies to investigate American citizens or to cross-check with other databases. In the 1960s and 1970s, the military used NSA intercepts to maintain files on U.S. peace activists, revelations of which prompted Congress to restrict the NSA from intercepting communications of Americans.

Looking for patterns
Today's NSA intercepts yield two broad categories of information, said a former administration official familiar with the program: "content," which would include transcripts of a phone call or e-mail, and "non-content," which would be records showing, for example, who in the United States was called by, or was calling, a number in another country thought to have a connection to a terrorist group. At the same time, NSA tries to limit identifying the names of Americans involved.

BTW, all emails you send contains your email address in the header, as well as the route the email took to get from your computer to the destination. With an email address, it's easy for an authority to find out who you are. In fact, all Internet activity, include page requests when browsing a site, contain the originating ID - how else would it know where to return the data to, and how else would all the website hosting companies be able to supply reports on who visited a given site, when the visit was made and from where? No matter where you go, your computer leaves behind its fingerprint. For the most part, this process is benign, but it can be used for the wrong purposes by untrustworthy people.


And back to the point of concern, the article further states:

quote:
Talon is a system that civilian and military personnel use to report suspicious activities around military installations. Information from these reports is fed into a database known as the Joint Protection Enterprise Network, which is managed, as is the Talon system, by the Counterintelligence Field Activity, the newest Defense Department intelligence agency to focus primarily on counterterrorism. The database is shared with intelligence and law enforcement agencies and was found last month to have contained information about peace activists and others protesting the Iraq war that appeared to have no bearing on terrorism.

Military officials acknowledged that such information should have been purged after 90 days and that the Talon system was being reviewed.

------


Item 2: From the AP through Yahoo.com

Bush Defends Domestic Spying Program
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060101/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

The article starts with statements made today. It appears that Bush is again changing his wording to play down his actions and improve his image. Interesting that last week he admitted it was only two-way communications, to and from terrorists outside the country, that were being tapped, and later it was revealed that data mining was also taking place on internal US calls and emails. I wonder how many blind followers he'll dupe this time?


quote:
SAN ANTONIO - President Bush on Sunday strongly defended his domestic spying program, saying it's a limited initiative that tracks only incoming calls to the United States.

At the end of the article, he finds it necessary to further qualify another statement he'd previously made - now he finds he must segregate issues, statements that when originally made were blanket statements (or were they simply meant to be misleading CYAs (Cover Your A$$?):

quote:
The president was asked whether he misled the American people in 2004 when, during an event promoting the Patriot Act, he said that any wiretapping required a court order and that nothing had changed. He made the statement more than two years after he approved the NSA program.

"I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involving the Patriot Act," Bush said. "This is different from the NSA program."

And another example of how he continually changes his story can be found here: The Bush Legacy: 2006 Is So Yesterday http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/weekinreview/01sanger.html?pagewanted=all where he now says:


quote:
"He insists that his real motive in conducting the war in Iraq is to democratize one of the least democratic corners of the earth."
What ever happened to WMDs?


And here is yet another article (from MSNBC) on the president defending his spying program. This one, however, seems to be slanted with definite right wing bias - they don't appear to be much concerned with rebuttals and concerns raised, except for a reiteration that Ashcroft resisted the program. They even quote from a FOXNews interview. Also, the arguments they quote are the typical administration type of quotes meant to frighten us into submission.

Bush says spying leak causes great harm
President calls domestic surveillance program limited
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10673060/


That's it for today - an eclectic
smattering of interesting reading.

My husband and I wish all of you a wonderfully Happy New Year.

[ January 01, 2006, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/03/06 03:38 AM

If you haven't picked up a copy of Jimmy Carter's new book, it's worth the read. A chilling indictment of the current administration from a creditable source.

In it, he does point out (with statistics and all that other good stuff) that there have been MORE terrorist attacks since the war in Iraq was initiated than before.
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/03/06 03:50 AM

The Newsweek article was great -- thought-provoking, and balanced. If you read nothing else in Vi's list (Thanks, Vi!) read that one.
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/02/06 10:43 PM

Casey, thanks for the information relative to Jimmy Carter's book. I saw him interviewed about it on several programs. He's a good man with a lot of integrity. He walks his talk.

Here's today's stuff:


Item 1: From the NYTimes about the president's Sunday comments in San Antonio as he visited wounded soldiers at the Brooke Army Medical Center.

Much is reiteration of previous articles - Bush's lame arguments, excuses, diversions (we should be investigating who leaked the program, not the legality of it - again they ignore the Plame leak investigation) and contradictions. Still, it's worth perusing, if for no other reason than to see that he's still misleading the public and trying to coerce us with doom and gloom.

Bush Defends Spy Program and Denies Misleading Public
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/02/politics/02spy.html


Item 2: From CNN.com. Basically a repeat substantiation of the NYTimes article.

Bush defends NSA spying program
Senators back hearings as president explains campaign remarks
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/01/nsa.spying/index.html


NOTE: MSNBC also had something on this topic, but it was on a video that wouldn't work


Item 3: From CNN.com. This appears to be a defensive PR "hail the chief" article - don't get stuck in the syrup.

Bush visits wounded troops in Texas
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/01/bush.troops.ap/index.html

quote:
"The president, as commander in chief, feels it's one his most important duties to visit with those who are serving in the armed forces and providing great sacrifice for this important mission," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said.

"He thanks them for their service. He asks how they're doing. He is always interested in seeing if they are getting the kinds of care they need," Duffy said, adding that not all the troops' injuries were sustained in combat.

If he's so "interested in seeing they are getting the kinds of care they need", why did he cut veteran's benefits last year?


In this next quote, you can see the touch of disparity between his lifestyle, those who are giving their lives for him and our country and the everyday average citizen - let them eat cake!

quote:
Bush spent the past week relaxing at his ranch where he rode his bike, cleared brush and prepared for his sixth year in office. He and his wife, Laura, and her mother, Jenna Welch, stayed at the ranch on New Year's Eve and had a steak dinner.

On the lighter side:

Item 3: From MSNBC, this next article has nothing to do with the thread. It's just a neat story.

‘Hero’ cat apparently dials 911 to help owner
Responding to emergency call, police officer finds feline next to phone
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663270/


Item 4: And here's a goofy story.

Italian women hostages in Yemen refuse release
Three tourists held say they won’t leave until male companions are set free
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10661738/

And the funny thing is:

quote:
Tribesmen frequently kidnap tourists to force concessions from the government in Yemen, a poor, mountainous nation on the southern tip of the Arabian peninsula where state control in outlying areas is shaky.

The hostages are usually freed unharmed, but several were killed in 2000 when Yemeni soldiers carried out a botched raid to free them.

Item 5: I also received an article from a friend that I couldn't get a link to. It was in the Wall Street Journal for December 28, 2005. The article was titled,

Some Conservatives Return To Old Argument
Outside Advocacy Group Aims To Rally Support by Backing Bush's Initial Claims on Iraq

Of particular concern to note was the following, about their radio and tv ads:


quote:
The hard-hitting spots are part of a recent public-relations barrage aimed at reversing a decline in public support for President Bush's handling of Iraq. But these advertisements aren't paid for by the Republican National Committee or other established White House allies. Instead, they are sponsored by Move America Forward, a media-savvy outside advocacy group that has become one of the loudest -- and most controversial -- voices in the Iraq debate.
and

quote:
"An organization with a shady tax status participating in partisan activities and saying things that aren't true is a rogue element in American politics."

Oddly enough:

quote:
The White House didn't return several calls seeking comment. A Republican National Committee spokesman declined to comment.
That's it for today. Now back to work - a painting of a wolf in the Grand Teton Mtns. in Wyoming and the writing of my old ladies' novel.

[ January 02, 2006, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/08/06 03:02 AM

Well, Congress has spoken...

From the Washington Post:
"A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad."

This is a NON-PARTISAN committee.

Of course, the Bush Administration disagrees:

"Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the president and the administration believe the program is on firm legal footing."

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, states that this discussion, similar to the one we are having in this forum, is asking questions which are central to the American government. That is, what authorities does the president have and is he complying with the law.

Here's the link (you may have to join):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010601772.html?referrer=email&referrer=email

Peace,
Posted by: norma

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/07/06 05:11 PM

Thought provoking and informative posts Casey and Vi, thanks. Do you think PNAC is no longer something for the rest of us to worry about because of the way other events are unfolding?

[ January 07, 2006, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: norma ]
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/08/06 01:02 AM

Casey, thank you for posting this enlightening article. I was able to link to it without signing up.

It is supported by the following article in the New York Times

Basis for Spying in U.S. Is Doubted
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07nsa.html?th&emc=th


This certainly promises to be an interesting year on the political front with the upcoming investigations and the congressional elections.

Poll: Democrats favored to control Congress
Following Abramoff scandal, public uneasy with Republican Party, AP finds
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10740963/


Even when things are handled legally, government investigations can get it all wrong and cause innocent citizens undo stress. This can be seen in the following article.

Brandon Mayfield, the Islamic lawyer from Portland, OR whose life was drastically altered when he was falsely arrested by the FBI because of shoddy fingerprint analysis.

Inquiry Says F.B.I. Erred in Implicating Man in Attack
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07terror.html

We certainly live in interesting times.

Norma, I’m feeling a bit uninformed - I can’t think what PNAC stands for.

Vi
Posted by: norma

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/08/06 07:53 AM

PNAC ... Project for the New American Century....
it's principals and objectives are on the net,
a doctrine for world peace and democracy, or .........? Whose to say?
Posted by: Sandpiper

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/08/06 05:23 PM

Norma I still think PNAC is definitely something we should still be worried about. Don't discount it's importance on what is going on right now.

Sandpiper
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/08/06 11:30 PM

Norma and Sandpiper, thanks for the input on the PNAC. I looked it up on the web and found all kinds of links, some praising it, some telling of the threat it poses.

For those who like me were uninformed on the subject there's an artcle dated 2/25/03 at:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

quote:
The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper
produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses:
Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines
what is required of America to create the global empire they envision.
According to PNAC, America must:
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia
and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft,
submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a
strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic
product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Also see:

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

quote:
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

There are tons of articles one can read and decide for themselves whether or not we and the world are in dire jeopardy because of the PNAC. I, for one, believe we are, and we need to be vigilant in letting our representatives know how we feel about this. It all fits right in with what Bush has admitted doing recently and his claim that he has the authority to do it, even though many legal scholars disagree with him.


Today's news is geared to the corruption in Washington, pointing mostly to republicans and the Abramoff, Delay, Ney triangle. I only found one article on Bush, NSA and civil liberties from MyYahoo - Associated Press, below.

From MyYahoo - Associated Press

Specter Wants AG's Testimony on Spying
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060108/ap_on_go_co/domestic_spying

Asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" if Gonzales had agreed to appear, Specter said, "Well, I didn't ask him if he had agreed. I told him we were holding the hearings and he didn't object. I don't think he has a whole lot of choice on testifying."

[ January 08, 2006, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: Casey

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/11/06 06:55 PM

Shudder...Yes, thanks for asking the question, Vi. I remember reading about PNAC before and shuddering then, too.

For balance, I think I should bring in the recent commentary by Joel Klein in Time Magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1147137,00.html

In it, Klein takes Nancy Pelosi to task for a "small, but cheesy, bit of deception." The saliant paragraph is: The release of Pelosi's letter last week and the subsequent Times story ("Agency First Acted on Its Own to Broaden Spying, Files Show") left the misleading impression that a) Hayden had launched the controversial data-mining operation on his own, and b) Pelosi had protested it. But clearly the program didn't exist when Pelosi wrote the letter. When I asked the Congresswoman about this, she said, "Some in the government have accused me of confusing apples and oranges. My response is, it's all fruit."

Sorry, it's not all fruit. It's by lumping things together that have subtle differences that bring us problems. In order to hold the high ground, you need to play fair.

Like it or not, we have a war going on -- one that was voted for by Congress. My objection to Mr. Bush's manipulation of the NSA rules is that he did it without consent of the Congress, the voices of the American people. Combined with the PNAC information, it's a trend that scares me almost as much as bird flu...

Peace
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/12/06 12:06 AM

Casey, I, too, am alarmed. Although I am not frightened by the bird flu threat.

Did you know that Rumsfeld owns stock in Tamiflu - the stuff they plan to sell us for bird flu, even though it has been stated that they don't even know if it will work. They're making a big deal out of bird flu worldwide so people like Rumsfeld can make a lot of money.

Yes, we could have a worldwide pandemic. Since those kinds of viruses can mutate into something a given vaccine does not address...what's a person do to? Vaccines don't work against viruses. AIDS is a much worse threat in so many places - especially for our young who think they are invincible. The diabetes rate is on the increase in the country - people aren't eating what they need to eat. There are all kinds of things that are much more likely to kill us than bird flu.

The fact that Bush keeps hammering in his right to disobey the laws as he sees fit frightens me a lot. What will frighten me even more is if our representatives and the citizenry of this country in general buy into it and allow him and his colleagues to get away with it. If this happens, he really will become King George. The Bush Administration is killing the principles of this country from within, all the while saying they are protecting us. I'm counting on the citizenry realizing who and what the man is. If we don't wake up, we are doomed.
--
From NetZero, USA Today - ever changing his story in the hopes of gaining sympathetic supporters:

Bush: Eavesdropping hearings 'good for democracy'
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-11-bush_x.htm?csp=24

Interesting that now he says he's for the hearings - with qualifications, of course - what a flip-flopper.

quote:
"There will be a lot of hearings to talk about that, but that's good for democracy," he said. "Just so long as the hearings, as they explore whether or not I had the prerogative to make the decision I make, doesn't tell the enemy what we're doing. See, that's the danger."

And this is reassuring for someone who has never had to fight in a war - he's a real martyr:

quote:
While saying he wanted to bring American troops home, he said, "I don't want them to come home without achieving the victory."

Casey, thanks for posting your article. It's a worthwhile read.
Posted by: NHJackie

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/12/06 04:56 PM

There was a really frightening letter to the editor of our local paper today stating that people who criticize Bush should got find someplace eles to live, because they are no longer welcome in this country.

Gee, and here I thought our democratic principals were based on the right to choose our leaders and --- gasp! --- occassionally disagree with their decisions.

People like this scare me a lot worse than bird flu.
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/13/06 12:13 AM

I just don't understand why people think disagreeing with someone, anyone in this country is unpatriotic. We are a nation of diversity. People have moved here from all over the world. To expect us to all hold the same beliefs about anything is totally unrealistic. To disagree is to be American. To disagree is to be democratic. A place that allows for this disagreement is beautiful. A place that doesn't allow for disagreement and criticism is called a dictatorship.

The person who wrote that letter to the editor stating that people who criticize Bush should move somewhere else is touting the value of a dictatorship and all the while calling it a democracy. If and when this becomes a dictatorship, the answer is not to move away. The constitution states what we need to do in that case. We will need to follow it.

Thanks NHJackie for your comment. Your concerns are well-founded.

The news I found today mostly focused on the Alito confirmations hearings.
Posted by: NHJackie

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/13/06 01:55 AM

Keep in mind that this letter was written by someone who's probably on the edge of reality. This is MH, the "Live Free or Die" state. And there are people who believe that means live my way or the highway.
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/13/06 03:24 AM

Jackie,

So the person who wrote the editorial was the voice of intolerance. Hope he/she and all others like them in this country grow up a bit. It is immaturity that says,"My way is the only way." When we are three-years-old we throw tantrums. Maybe the editorial is his/her current form of the tantrum. Free means to have the right to believe "different from me", no matter who "me" is.

[ January 13, 2006, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: NHJackie

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/13/06 03:47 AM

Actually, it was a letter to the editor. The paper I subscribe to would never print an editorial like that. Even their most conservative columnists aren't that bad. This was just some local yahoo who likes to spout off and get his name in the paper, probably so he can brag that he's been published. I usually don't read those missives, but this one caught my eye for some reason. Afterward, I wished I hadn't read it.
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/13/06 11:44 PM

Jackie, my mistake. I was thinking "letter to the editor" when I wrote editorial. Yes, this is distressing.

Today there's a short article about the Pentagon spying on protesters.

Pentagon grilled over database on war critics
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10834915/


After each war, after each major catastrophy I always hope we've all learned that we are in this together. "Some may call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

Peace,
Vi
Posted by: NHJackie

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/14/06 04:48 PM

I try to remain optimist about everyone starting to realize we're all in this together. These days, it's hard to keep that perspective.
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/14/06 11:49 PM

Yes, Jackie, it is hard to remain optimistic. It's something I work in regularly. If we give up - where does that take us?

If someone tells you something and then does not follow through, again and again, but keeps repeating what they initially said, what do you believe, their actions or their words?

Repeatedly over the months since Bush initiated this war, he has stated his support for the troops. Today an ariticle from Newsweek printed online on MSNBC points to the discrepency between what he does and what he says. First, I refer you back to an article I posted on this subject on January 2, 2006. I've listed it again for your convenience.

Bush visits wounded troops in Texas
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/01/bush.troops.ap/index.html


quote:
"The president, as commander in chief, feels it's one his most important duties to visit with those who are serving in the armed forces and providing great sacrifice for this important mission," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said.

"He thanks them for their service. He asks how they're doing. He is always interested in seeing if they are getting the kinds of care they need," Duffy said, adding that not all the troops' injuries were sustained in combat.

The following addresses the fact that it's a lot of civilian contributions through a civilian organization, rather than the government, that seems to be doing most of the gungho legwork for getting treatment for soldiers with catastrophic wounds.
In todays' news there's something interesting that's happening with our wounded troops and the care they are receiving.

A new rehab center for injured U.S. soldiers sparks a controversy over healthcare for veterans
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10842565/site/newsweek/


quote:
But should such an institution really be funded by private sources? Inevitably, organizations like Intrepid have raised questions about whether the Bush administration--committed to two wars--is too stretched to properly take care of returning veterans. "It’s surprising to us that there needs to be a facility that’s privately funded, and we hope that the Congress and the Bush administration will recognize that we need to meet these goals of the severely injured," says Peter Gayton, director of veterans affai rs and rehabilitation at the American Legion. “The fact that the Intrepid Center needs to exist shows that the VA is not receiving enough funding."

The debate is being fueled by syndicated radio host Don Imus, who has donated $250,000 and has made raising money for the fund a regular feature on his morning show. On Friday he told listeners he doesn't know why "the government wouldn't just simply pay for [the center], considering the extraordinary amount of money they spend on ... this idiotic war." And later said "We have a tradition in this country, well, going back to the Civil War, in which we send off young people to fight these wars. Stuff happens to them. They lose their arms and legs. And we just discard them. You know, like they are iPods of old telephones or something."

Since we are sending troops to war, we'd better take care of them. Remember how Bush cut funds to the veterans last year? He can say all he wants about supporting the troops - but it's his actions that count. Maybe we need to send him to a new group to be founded, Liar's Anonymous, were people learn to tell the truth in a 12 Step Program.

[ January 14, 2006, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: NHJackie

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/15/06 02:43 AM

Seriously, though, would any politician willingly join that program? Not to say that I agree with Bush, but sometimes I don't trust any of them.
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/16/06 12:02 AM

Jackie,

Probably not. A study on lying was done 10 -15 years ago. This study revealed that all of us lie between 2 - 5 times a day. These results were reported on the national news. Oh, most of us, I believe, don't acknowledge that some of the things we say are lies. But if we objectively examine what we say to others I do believe we can corroborate the results of the study. It can be as simple as the answer to, "Do you like my dress?"

Today's news was basically depressing, it can be summed up in the following article from MSNBC, Newsweek - It really could be the end of checks and balances . . . and Alito may prove it:

A Power Outage on Capitol Hill
We are in danger of scrapping our checks and balances—not just for a few years (as was done during the Civil War), but for good.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10854374/site/newsweek/

quote:
Jan. 23, 2006 issue - What if we faced a constitutional crisis and hardly anyone noticed? As he quietly mastered the tiresome cat-and-mouse game inside the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Judge Samuel Alito gave few hints of where he stood on a matter that goes to the heart of what it means to live in a republic. With a few exceptions, the media coverage didn't help. It's so much easier to talk about Joe Biden's big mouth or a right-wing Princeton alumni group or Mrs. Alito's tears than to figure out how the country should prevent a president of the United States from castrating the United States Congress.

Am I the only one that thought Mrs. Alito's tears looked staged?

And


quote:
Remember, this is not about whether it's right or wrong to wiretap bad guys, though the White House hopes to frame it that way for political purposes. Any rational person wants the president to be able to hunt for Qaeda suspects wherever they lurk. The "momentous" issue (Alito's words) is whether this president, or any other, has the right to tell Congress to shove it. And even if one concedes that wartime offers the president extra powers to limit liberty, what happens if the terrorist threat looks permanent? We may be scrapping our checks and balances not just for a few years (as during the Civil War), but for good.
quote:
Alito embodies the inherent contradiction of the conservative movement. The nominee is an "originalist," which means, as he said last week, that "we should look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption." But at that time, the 18th century, the Founders could not have been clearer about the role of Congress in wartime. As James Madison put it, "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislative and not to the executive branch."
quote:
Fortunately, Sen. Arlen Specter will hold hearings in early February on presidential power. Watch them, please, even if you're tired of this cast of Judiciary Committee characters. Our whole system is on the line.
Please, everyone, look beyond your party lines. Look openly and fairly at what is going on. Please don't just fall back on the party beliefs you were born into or even those you developed over the years. Please look beyond the spiritual beliefs someone professes. The Bible says, "By their works, you shall know them." By their works, not their words, not the glow on their faces, not the mantle they wear.
Posted by: meredithbead

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/16/06 05:44 AM

Thank you Vi for that last paragraph. It's an applicable message for all of us.
Posted by: XBWS

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/16/06 10:26 PM

How with it is Bush considering the following:

"President Bush toured the Gulf Coast Thursday, noting improvements since the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. In New Orleans, the president did not tour any of the city's still-deserted neighborhoods, and protesters called for a stronger federal commitment to fortify the city's levees."

He then stated in an interview, "New Orleans is looking like the city I used to visit." He only visited the French Quarters which escaped most of the devastation. Does he care about the people who are suffering? Was he afraid to see the real picture?

The people of New Orleans were outraged. Was this written by a very poor speech writer or just another Bushism?
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 12:26 AM

meredithbead,

You're welcome. This kind of examination is crucial to our survival as a democracy. I appreciate your acknowledgement and for continuing to follow the thread.

suzieq,

I thought the same thing when I heard Bush's comments on the progress in New Orleans. With all the money that has been given, it seems a lot more of those poor people should be a lot better off by now. What happened to that money and why aren't the ones who need it the most receiving it? Why is it taking so long? Is it in other peoples' pockets? Every time Bush flies into the area and takes a look, I wonder how much it costs us for his visit, and couldn't that money be put to better use by helping the folks who live there? Bad speech writer? What about his thought processes - Bushisms as you say? He really is an aging rich kid, who doesn't know what doing without is like.


>From MSNBC - a good article with a live voter's poll:

Poll: Iraq, politicians top Americans' concerns
Political scandal and war cited far ahead of economy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10875391/

quote:
Below are the most frequent responses cited by Americans asked this open-ended question by the AP-Ipsos poll: "What is the most important problem facing the country today?" Based on the responses, which do you feel is the top problem? * 13396 responses

Political leaders - 45%
Morality-5%
Energy crisis -3%
Crime/drugs -1%
Education -1%
Environment -2%
Iraq war -27%
Wars, worldwide unrest -5%
Terrorism - 6%
Economy - 4%
Unemployment -1%

The following is an article to consider. While it may not seem to be on the same topic, in a way I think it is, for the root of this question also seems to be the dividing line relative to where people stand on this issue. Read it for yourself and decide.

Let's accept the fault line between faith and science
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060116/cm_usatoday/letsacceptthefaultlinebetweenfaithandscience


Did any one hear the Al Gore speech today? Gore says Bush broke the law in using wire taps without warrants, repeatedly and consistently in a power grab. Gore calls for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate it. Gore says our constitution is at risk. Check it out, if you can find a way to check it out. Sometimes when Gore speaks on something really important, he gets passed over by the media.

[ January 16, 2006, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: Dianne

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 12:31 AM

Is Gore going to run for office again?
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 12:40 AM

Gore cares passionately for this country. He wants the integrity of the constitution to be upheld. He's calling for an investigation to make sure it is. His political ambitions are unknown to me, but it sure would be nice if he did. Have you ever read his book on the environment? It's excellent. He has a good mind. He is an honorable man.
Posted by: chatty lady

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 12:42 AM

Oh my God help us all if he ever gets elected. You knoiw I am so sick of all this, WE ARE AT WAR PEOPLE...Thank God President Bush has the intelligence to monitor the calls of people who could be and are a threat to our safety. He does not believe in locking the barn AFTER the horse has been stolen. These are not normal times nor are they normal situations and he is doing the job he needs to do to keep us all safe in our nice tidy country. Is he perfect, he** no, but who is, who would or could be in these trying times. Gore is a loser and a proven liar and needs to sit back and shut up for once. But it is a free country and he can try to stir up those who love confusion and conflict so he does... [Mad]

[ January 16, 2006, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: chatty lady ]
Posted by: Daisygirl

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 03:05 AM

Who ever listens to Al Gore? He's a self important blowhard and he and others who spout off about all this wacko stuff are the reason Democrats will probably never get their power back. They are being funded by the far left hollywood types.

Fine by me, they are only digging their own graves.

Daisygirl
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 03:13 AM

Chatty, you are wise and you speak for more Americans than may be apparent. Far too many fear the hate filled rhetoric that erupts at every patriotic utterance. Anything spoken in support of this country or our leaders is attacked, and the most destructive attacks come, not from our enemies, but from our own people.

We are at war. And in wartime we must speak out and we must speak loud, loud enough to drown out the voice of those who would destroy our country from within.

It is time to stand behind our leaders and pull together and not apart.

smile
Posted by: Daisygirl

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 03:19 AM

Those against President Bush keep talking about him listening in on Americans, like he was sitting in the oval office listing to my sister and I discuss our lunch date this week. If you aren't talking to our enemies, why worry about it?

I bet the NYT is the favorite newspaper of the insurgents and terrorist groups. People just don't get it. Our freedom, our country and our way of life is at stake. People want us, our parents and our children all dead and it doesn't matter if we're nice to them or not.

Daisygirl - I'm on a roll.
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 03:39 AM

Carey was a gift to the winning Republicans. Gore would be the greatest gift of all.

Democrats keep doing Republicans such big favors. They keep on attacking Bush. They attack our defense, and support our enemies. The nominate Gore, they nominate Carey, they select Howard Dean, they allow Kennedy to represent moral values. The only thing they could that would help Republicans more is to nominate Hilary.

smile
Posted by: LuckyLady

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 04:50 AM

I'm from Texas and I knew about our lying GOVENOR and his sidekick Karl Rove before "W" ever stole the presidency. At least Clinton's zipper didn't kill our children. My husband was drafted for Viet Nam and he didn't have the opportunity to disappear for a year like our president! How can anyone support all these old men who never sacrificed snything for our country? LUCKYLADY
Posted by: LuckyLady

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 05:26 AM

It is spelled Kerry! I don't appreciate anyone calling me unpatriotic because I don't suppoort this war. If anyone supports this fiasco, go to your nearest recruiter and ENLIST!! Luckylady
Posted by: Daisygirl

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 12:44 PM

I would be honored to enlist, but I believe there are age limits, unfortunately.

Daisygirl
Posted by: Dotsie

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 02:17 PM

This is a forum that always makes me nervous because obviously we have such opposing views.

As long as everyone treats one another fairly and doesn't make jabs at individuals posting in this forum, I will keep it open because I think it's good to have a place to discuss, share differing opinions, and not be torn apart for our beliefs.

However, as soon as I see women putting others down because of their beliefs I will close the forum.

Please take this as a friendly warning because that's all it's intended to be.
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 02:23 PM

I should have explained the Carey spelling.

Spelling John Kerry's name "Carey" is a local joke. It resulted from a young ditz at the local gym who, when hearing "John Kerry" was running said, "Oh, I just loved him in "Liar, Liar."

("Carey" may be a misspelling of Jim Carey's name too. I'm not sure how he spells it.)

Either way John Kerry won the booby prize.

smile

P.S. Dots, I agree, debating differing ideologies is to be expected, even supported. It is the American way. And criticizing politicians is a national pastime, but as the recipient of some very hateful individual attacks in a previous topic, I would support eliminating any topic that descends to attacks on individual boomers.

[ January 17, 2006, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: smilinize ]
Posted by: LuckyLady

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/18/06 03:25 AM

I believe they have raised the age limit to 40. Who knows, the age limit could reach us Boomers before this is over. LuckyLady
Posted by: NHJackie

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 04:10 PM

By attacking each other and calling each other names because of our different beliefs, we are only making things worse.

Thank you, Dotsie. If you don't close this discussion, I will simply opt not to follow it. That is my right. What's going on here, in my opinion, is not debate. It's mud slinging and name calling, and I don't want to be a part of a group that does that.

And this time, if anyone's insulted, I don't care!
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 05:05 PM

Was anyone except our president being attacked?

Must be that invisible ink again.

smile
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 06:06 PM

Dotsie,

If you need to close the topic because some posters decide not to be civil to others, then that is certainly your right. I respect that. I respect you. I am always careful not to say anything that would in anyway demean or attack anyone on this site. If closing down dissenting opinions is what the attackers want, then they would get their way.

I remember when I first started posting on this web site about my sister dying. I remember how kind everyone was to me. While I envisioned there would be differing opinions I never envisioned personal attacks were taking place. Then as I healed I ventured into other areas and saw cat fights taking place under a variety of topics and headings, not just politics and religion. Bummer.

Since then, I've found other sites to post on, places where people treat each other with respect. One site about gratefulness specifically states very plainly in the sign up rules that if anyone demeans anyone in anyway on the site, that post will be eliminated. If it were my site, I would do the same thing.

May peace come to live in all our hearts as we move forward together in love - stronger because of our differences, not weaker.

Vi
Posted by: Daisygirl

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 06:14 PM

Dotsie, I really tried to respect your wishes and not respond to these attacks on our President. I do realize this makes you uncomfortable, but I, personally, cannot continue to let him and our country go undefended.

Most of the "facts" are only opinions of some of Pres. Bush's political enemies from this country, quotes from foreign newspapers, and quotes from known left-wing newspapers and websites that have a history of being biased towards the left. Here is the list of "contributors" Yahoo, MSNBC, CNN, Sunday Herald (a newspaper from Scotland), New York Times, Washington Post and a site called Boing Boing. Personally, I do not trust these sources for unbiased reporting.

I am sorry your website has been used for left wing propaganda. It seems that some people cannot handle it when others disagree.

Daisygirl
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/17/06 06:15 PM

I too have tried to ignore this entire topic, but I too could no longer remain silent. I think some of us have posted in opposition to what appears to be unpaid political advertising.

I have seen Republicans attacked and I have seen Democrats attacked, but I haven't seen anyone on this site attacked.

Vi, please be specific about the attacks against boomers to which you refer by clicking the " " at the top of the post.

Maybe I missed something.

smile

[ January 17, 2006, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: smilinize ]
Posted by: chatty lady

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/18/06 12:09 AM

Opposing views is right and I thought we were all Americans here...I have read everything on this thread and until yesterday ignored it and the blatent ignorance and remarks against our country and its leaders I read and personally I will go back to ignoring them once again. I learned long ago you can't change the mind or views of those wearing blinders so why bother. It it were me there would be NO political rederic in this Forum at all...too volatile a subject for those patriotic and respectful of our countries leaders to ignore and keep their cool but I for one will try and hope others recognize jibberish when they see it....

[ January 17, 2006, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: chatty lady ]
Posted by: LuckyLady

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/18/06 03:57 AM

Many men and women have served our country and some have even made the ultimate sacrifice so that ALL may voice their opinions. I have the right to agree or disagree and I will continue to do so. LuckyLady
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/18/06 04:14 AM

Right On, LuckyLady!

This has certainly proven to be an interesting day. Thank you for your part in it.

This thread was not started to discuss individual personalities of the women on this site. It was started to discuss Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties. I, therefore, return to the topic.

In addition to the sources I have quoted, mentioned in an above post, I have also included articles from Reuters, The Christian Science Monitor, The Associated Press, National Review and USA Today. As mentioned previously, your articles are welcome.


The first article I submit for your perusal today addresses the divide, the differing opinions on Boomer Women Speak - it speaks to and for all of us . . . even the men.

The Last Hurrah
The baby boomers tacked left, then right. Where will their politics go in the golden years? The 'I want it all and I want it now' crowd confronts its hardest campaigns.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10855757/site/newsweek/

Very interesting and telling article (as you'll see by the number and length of quotes and comments). I wonder if all the "innocents" will somehow now be on record with the FBI for things they are "innocent" of.

Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?th&emc=th

quote:
In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

Some conclusions reached by those actually doing the investigating:

quote:
President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.

A counter statement from one who defends the program - unfortunately, they only make a statement and do not substantiate it with anything.

quote:
Intelligence officials disagree with any characterization of the program's results as modest, said Judith A. Emmel, a spokeswoman for the office of the director of national intelligence. Ms. Emmel cited a statement at a briefing last month by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the country's second-ranking intelligence official and the director of the N.S.A. when the program was started.

"I can say unequivocally that we have gotten information through this program that would not otherwise have been available," General Hayden said. The White House and the F.B.I. declined to comment on the program or its results.

Additionally:

quote:
"It isn't at all surprising to me that people not accustomed to doing this would say, 'Boy, this is an awful lot of work to get a tiny bit of information,' " said Adm. Bobby R. Inman, a former N.S.A. director. "But the rejoinder to that is, Have you got anything better?"

Several of the law enforcement officials acknowledged that they might not know of arrests or intelligence activities overseas that grew out of the domestic spying program. And because the program was a closely guarded secret, its role in specific cases may have been disguised or hidden even from key investigators.

Still, the comments on the N.S.A. program from the law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, many of them high level, are the first indication that the program was viewed with skepticism by key figures at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the agency responsible for disrupting plots and investigating terrorism on American soil.

And again from those who do not see this as a fruitful venture:

quote:
The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. "There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States," the former F.B.I. official said.
The administration feels, however, that there might (keyword "might") have been some results gained:

quote:
Some of the officials said the eavesdropping program might have helped uncover people with ties to Al Qaeda in Albany; Portland, Ore.; and Minneapolis. Some of the activities involved recruitment, training or fund-raising.
And a rebuttal by FBI, British and other officials:

quote:
But, along with several British counterterrorism officials, some of the officials questioned assertions by the Bush administration that the program was the key to uncovering a plot to detonate fertilizer bombs in London in 2004. The F.B.I. and other law enforcement officials also expressed doubts about the importance of the program's role in another case named by administration officials as a success in the fight against terrorism, an aborted scheme to topple the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch.

Some officials said that in both cases, they had already learned of the plans through interrogation of prisoners or other means.

As an aside, I find it interesting that none of this unwarranted spying since October 2001 (well before we invaded Iraq) addresses any efforts to find out the truth about Iraq's WMDs, or any of the "other" reasons given to invade that country - after all, we did have over a year to do as much spying as we liked . . . but then again, if no information was discovered to support a war and the country was invaded anyway, wouldn't that only be done by an imperialistic dictator?

Back to basics: another point of frustration for those involved in the unwarranted search:

quote:
F.B.I. field agents, who were not told of the domestic surveillance programs, complained that they often were given no information about why names or numbers had come under suspicion. A former senior prosecutor who was familiar with the eavesdropping programs said intelligence officials turning over the tips "would always say that we had information whose source we can't share, but it indicates that this person has been communicating with a suspected Qaeda operative." He said, "I would always wonder, what does 'suspected' mean?"

"The information was so thin," he said, "and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up."

In response to the F.B.I. complaints, the N.S.A. eventually began ranking its tips on a three-point scale, with 3 being the highest priority and 1 the lowest, the officials said. Some tips were considered so hot that they were carried by hand to top F.B.I. officials. But in bureau field offices, the N.S.A. material continued to be viewed as unproductive, prompting agents to joke that a new bunch of tips meant more "calls to Pizza Hut," one official, who supervised field agents, said.

From the NYTimes - an article on what looks like the beginning of what will no doubt become a number of deep probes into the legality of unwarranted eavesdropping:

Two Groups Planning to Sue Over Federal Eavesdropping
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17nsa.html

quote:
The lawsuits seek to answer one of the major questions surrounding the eavesdropping program: has it been used solely to single out the international phone calls and e-mail messages of people with known links to Al Qaeda, as President Bush and his most senior advisers have maintained, or has it been abused in ways that civil rights advocates say could hark back to the political spying abuses of the 1960's and 70's?
And the Associated Press' version of the story - much shorter than the NYTimes version:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060117/ap_on_re_us/domestic_spying_lawsuit_5


From USA Today - An opinion piece - A question of Bush's authority and a statement to those who agree with him:

President's power grab threatens rule of law
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060117/cm_usatoday/presidentspowergrabthreatensruleoflaw

quote:
Five years ago this week, the Bush administration came into office determined to reverse what Vice President Cheney and others regarded as undue limits on presidential power. The administration's power grab has reached such brazen heights that President Bush now claims he is above the law.

For any American who thinks presidents should have the power of czars and kings, this is good news. For the rest of us, it should raise deep concern.

An interesting comment from Rep. Bob Barr, a conservative Republican:

quote:
Though Bush should use all legal means to protect against terror attacks, his "the law is what I say it is" attitude threatens the rights of all Americans and the constitutional system of checks and balances. In the words of former representative Bob Barr, a conservative Republican from Georgia: "President George W. Bush has ... dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."
The article concludes:

quote:
It's up to Congress and the courts to preserve the Founders' careful balancing of executive and legislative power. The Republican-controlled Congress has been reluctant to challenge Bush's excesses, but that might be changing. The Senate Judiciary Committee is planning hearings next month on the warrantless wiretapping. Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and committee members of both parties have joined the growing chorus of skepticism about the legality of the eavesdropping program.

That should send a message to the White House: Unless Bush scales back his administration's power grabs and obeys the laws Congress has written, a constitutional showdown could well be in his future.

From USA Today - another opinion piece with an opposing view to the last article. What I find interesting is that while the previous article scored 4 stars out of 5, this one scored 2 stars out of 5. I wonder, is that at all representative of the numbers of people supporting each view?

Americans deserve no less
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060117/cm_usatoday/americansdeservenoless


From the Associated Press, presented on MSNBC - The Administration fights back on remarks made by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton:
White House blasts Gore’s ‘hypocrisy’
Bush spokesman cites former VP's comments on domestic spying
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10891443/

However, note this quote:

quote:
McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton’s deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.

“I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds,” McClellan said of Gore.

But at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.

AG Gonzales also used McClellan's argument (but the above already addresses his uninformed statement - it happened "before" there was a law against it, so Clinton did act within his authority. Makes me think Gonzales wasn't a very good attorney if he missed that little fact.)

quote:
On CNN’s “Larry King Live,” Gonzales said Gore’s comments were inconsistent with Clinton administration policy.

“It’s my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding physical searches without warrants,” Gonzales said. “I can also say it’s my understanding that the deputy attorney general testified before Congress that the president does have the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in physical searches without a warrant. And so, those would certainly seem to be inconsistent with what the former vice president was saying today.”

Like I’ve said before this is a fascinating time to be alive.

[ January 18, 2006, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/19/06 10:52 PM

Update:

Report Questions Legality of Briefings on Surveillance
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/politics/19nsa.html

quote:
A legal analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concludes that the Bush administration's limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping without warrants are "inconsistent with the law."
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/21/06 02:09 AM

Vi

Dottie partially supports this site by offering paid advertising. Perhaps you would like to investigate that option.

smile
Posted by: chatty lady

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/21/06 02:19 AM

Good idea since you're certainly using both Dotsie and her site for your own subversive agenda...

[ January 20, 2006, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: chatty lady ]
Posted by: Vi

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/21/06 03:43 AM

My heart is sad for you, all of you. May blessings seep into your hearts and make you whole.

Vi
Posted by: smilinize

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/21/06 04:40 AM

Thank you for your blessings, Vi.

We are already greatly blessed. We live in the greatest country in the world.

Because we all love the boomersite, we hope you will help Dotsie continue the site by purchasing advertising space.

smile
Posted by: Dotsie

Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties - 01/21/06 01:22 PM

Ladies, I know many of you will be disappointed , but the time has come to close this topic. Let me state why.

There are no other topics within this forum that have so many links taking you away from BWS.

I understand they are educational, but I don't believe it is fair to me, the site owner, who tries very hard to keep women right here at BWS.

The point of the forums is to keep women chatting and coming back.

Posts with many links take women away, therefore defeating my purpose of building community within our online neighborhood, BWS.