|
0 Registered (),
252
Guests and
1
Spider online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
3239 Members
63 Forums
16332 Topics
210704 Posts
Max Online: 409 @ 01/16/20 10:33 PM
|
|
|
#55231 - 12/28/05 03:01 AM
Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties
|
Member
Registered: 11/18/05
Posts: 789
Loc: Aptos, California
|
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.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#55233 - 12/28/05 04:00 AM
Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties
|
Member
Registered: 11/22/02
Posts: 1149
Loc: Ohio
|
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 ]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#55235 - 12/28/05 05:28 AM
Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties
|
Member
Registered: 05/21/05
Posts: 252
|
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.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#55236 - 12/28/05 02:59 PM
Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties
|
Member
Registered: 08/25/05
Posts: 1052
Loc: Ohio
|
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
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#55237 - 12/28/05 04:32 PM
Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties
|
Member
Registered: 11/18/05
Posts: 789
Loc: Aptos, California
|
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.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#55238 - 12/28/05 04:47 PM
Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties
|
Member
Registered: 11/08/03
Posts: 3512
Loc: outer space
|
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
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#55240 - 12/28/05 07:53 PM
Re: Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties
|
Member
Registered: 11/08/03
Posts: 3512
Loc: outer space
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
