Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

[Ana4Stapp]

See this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?hp&ex=1134795600&en=c7596fe0d4798785&ei=5094&partner=homepage

what do you think about it?

[Lunar Shadow]

Impeach the bastard!


Sorry does it show that I hate bush? :D

[RMadd]

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty much grounds for impeachment. Only problem is, it looks like, at least right now, only Democrats have a problem with this little violation of our private rights. And with a Republican majority, at least until next fall's mid-term elections, in both houses of Congress, partisan politics could prevent his impeachment and a subsequent removal. (Keep in mind that just because a President is impeached doesn't mean he's removed; Clinton was impeached, but not removed, perhaps largely due to the success of the economy and a desire to not hurt it in any way).

I'm sure we'll see comparisons to how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (literally, "have the body") during the American Civil War, but this is a little bit different. Sure, it's not in the Constitution that the President can do that, but history has shown that it went very far to preserve the Union. In this case, however, the NSA is not allowed to spy on US soil, and the President's authorization of such, even in the interest of using it as a tool in the war on terror, just ain't right. I mean, not needing judicial authorization to go through people's emails, phone records, etc? That's just ludicrous!

[Ana4Stapp]

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty much grounds for impeachment. Only problem is, it looks like, at least right now, only Democrats have a problem with this little violation of our private rights. And with a Republican majority, at least until next fall's mid-term elections, in both houses of Congress, partisan politics could prevent his impeachment and a subsequent removal. (Keep in mind that just because a President is impeached doesn't mean he's removed; Clinton was impeached, but not removed, perhaps largely due to the success of the economy and a desire to not hurt it in any way).

I'm sure we'll see comparisons to how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (literally, "have the body") during the American Civil War, but this is a little bit different. Sure, it's not in the Constitution that the President can do that, but history has shown that it went very far to preserve the Union. In this case, however, the NSA is not allowed to spy on US soil, and the President's authorization of such, even in the interest of using it as a tool in the war on terror, just ain't right. I mean, not needing judicial authorization to go through people's emails, phone records, etc? That's just ludicrous!

I think I didnt get it: how is that: a president can be impeached but not removed, how? Seems that Congress rejected it? Can you explained that to me???? :confused:

Anyway, we had a president who was impeached and removed, thanks God!!!!! :D

[RMadd]

dictionary.com defines "impeach" as: "a) to make an accusation against, or b) to charge a public official with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal." Removal, of course, is when one is actually taken out of office.
In '98 or thereabouts, the Congress (maybe just the House of Representatives) voted to impeach President Clinton on account of his perjury (lying under oath). However, when it came down to a vote of whether or not to actually remove him from office for his perjurous conduct, Congress voted against taking him out.
As far as Bush's present situation, unless a fair number of Republicans decide to abandon him and follow the Democrat lead in these proceedings, Bush will not likely be removed from office. Even his impeachment may be questionable, although to not vote in favor of impeachment would pretty much show that politicans care more are partisan politics (supporting their party) rather than doing what is right.

[Ana4Stapp]

^^
I got it...it was waht i had imagined...it was very similar to my coiuntry, even though here Congress voted pro impeachement(they were pushed by people) --the president was accused of corruption acts...and it he was removed ...

But here in my country or in your country,wherever ..politicians are all the same...

[RMadd]

But here in my country or in your country,wherever ..politicians are all the same...
that's good to know, I guess, that we're not the only country in the world with morons in office lol

I guess Machiavelli was right: that the idealism of ancient political philosophers was absurd, and that people (read: politicians) are inherently bad and pursue their own interests above those of their city or state. or is this view just perpetuating the myth? who knows?

[Ana4Stapp]

that's good to know, I guess, that we're not the only country in the world with morons in office lol

I guess Machiavelli was right: that the idealism of ancient political philosophers was absurd, and that people (read: politicians) are inherently bad and pursue their own interests above those of their city or state. or is this view just perpetuating the myth? who knows?

I wouldnt say that evey politician has that repulsive behaviour, that all of them are BAD people, I think some of them are really good people with great ideas of how make citizens life a little better, but you know , they change when they get to the power...I think the political system doesnt want that things really change and also doenst like people who wants to change things...
wow...waht a mess...hope you get me...lol :D

[guitardude1985]

Here's the way I figure it.

Well, given that the spying was done on telephone, E-mail, faxes and such. However, given the simple fact that those communication outlets are really not that private. I mean, anybody can be looking at your e-mail with the propper technology. Lastly, if your not a potentiall terrorist or criminal that you simply have nothing to fear. And, this has been going on since Jimmy Carter nearly 30 years ago.

[Ana4Stapp]

Here's the way I figure it.

Well, given that the spying was done on telephone, E-mail, faxes and such. However, given the simple fact that those communication outlets are really not that private. I mean, anybody can be looking at your e-mail with the propper technology. Lastly, if your not a potentiall terrorist or criminal that you simply have nothing to fear. And, this has been going on since Jimmy Carter nearly 30 years ago.

Yeah, i got waht you meant, but people has the right to something called privacy, right?

[guitardude1985]

Of course people have the right to privacy, but with something as open at the internet it's not entirely given. Even before the internet the gouvernment has always had these filters going through our e-mails. And with this spying from what I have read is more like a filter searching for key words. For example, if I were to write something like "oh this album bombed" it could pick up on that key word, just in massive preportions, over millions of documents. Also, you have to realize that in a time of war sometime measures like this are sometimes nessisary to try and at least prevent another attack.

[revisfoot]

Bush made a really good point the other day, as well.

He said that if (and I'm paraphrasing) you're making calls to or recieving calls from known al-Queda members, we SHOULD be monitoring you.

And, to the idiot who immediately called for impeachment --

why don't you go do some homework on the subject at hand before making such absurd statements. Not only does it make you look like a damned fool, but a damned fool who is ignorant about the current events around him. Instead of instantly yelling "IMPEACH IMPEACH", how about you take a moment, read some of the news excerpts, maybe even pick out a few details about the program itself AND THEN make your judgement. However, now it would be more sound, more educated, therefore making you no longer seem like a step-in-line moron.

[HeavenBesideYou]

Wire tapping without a warrant is against the law.

Quite simple.

Now, where on Earth did he get permission to break this law?

Allowing this illegal behavior just shows how vulnerable and convincible politicians and the American people were immediately after 9/11, and that they were willing to do almost anything in order to feel a little bit of the safety they felt on 9/10. "Any means necessary" should not include illegal methods. This sets a dangerous precedent when we're cramming the promotion of democracy and the concept of running a country on the basis of the rule of law.

This idiocy is the biproduct of the president and his intent (again) to establish he can do what he wants as long as he keeps us living in fear!

When we concede our liberties in order to gain security, then we've lost our battle against terrorism.

Heaven

:pimp:

[Ana4Stapp]

Wire tapping without a warrant is against the law.

Quite simple.

Now, where on Earth did he get permission to break this law?

Allowing this illegal behavior just shows how vulnerable and convincible politicians and the American people were immediately after 9/11, and that they were willing to do almost anything in order to feel a little bit of the safety they felt on 9/10. "Any means necessary" should not include illegal methods. This sets a dangerous precedent when we're cramming the promotion of democracy and the concept of running a country on the basis of the rule of law.

This idiocy is the biproduct of the president and his intent (again) to establish he can do what he wants as long as he keeps us living in fear!

When we concede our liberties in order to gain security, then we've lost our battle against terrorism.Heaven

:pimp:

WOW!!!! Loved this!!!! ;)

[revisfoot]

However, it has been made very clear, though numerous articles written after the leak was made, that this program does not listen to you or you or you or you. If you're making phone calls to known al-Queda members, or known al-Queda members are calling you, yeah, I think we should listen to what you're saying. Sorry. When you deal with terrorists, you give up your rights. You are an enemy of the state.

[revisfoot]

LIVE AND LET SPY
December 21, 2005


Apart from the day The New York Times goes out of business — and the stellar work Paul Krugman's column does twice a week helping people house-train their puppies — the newspaper has done the greatest thing it will ever do in its entire existence. (Calm down: No, the Times didn't hold an intervention for Frank Rich.)

Monday's Times carried a major expose on child molesters who use the Internet to lure their adolescent prey into performing sex acts for Webcams. In the course of investigating the story, reporter Kurt Eichenwald broke open a massive network of pedophiles, rescued a young man who had been abused for years, and led the Department of Justice to hundreds of child molesters.

I kept waiting for the catch, but apparently the Times does not yet believe pedophilia is covered by the "privacy right." They should stop covering politics and start covering more stories like this.

In order to report the story, the Times said it obtained:

— copies of online conversations and e-mail messages between minors and the creepy adults;

— records of payments to the minors;

— membership lists for Webcam sites;

— defunct sites stored in online archives;

— files retained on a victim's computer over several years;

— financial records, credit card processing data and other information;

— The Neverland Ranch's mailing list. (OK, I made that last one up.)

Would that the Times allowed the Bush administration similar investigative powers for Islamofacists in America!

Which brings me to this week's scandal about No Such Agency spying on "Americans." I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.

But if we must engage in a national debate on half-measures: After 9/11, any president who was not spying on people calling phone numbers associated with terrorists should be impeached for being an inept commander in chief.

With a huge gaping hole in lower Manhattan, I'm not sure why we have to keep reminding people, but we are at war. (Perhaps it's because of the media blackout on images of the 9/11 attack. We're not allowed to see those because seeing planes plowing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon might make us feel angry and jingoistic.)

Among the things that war entails are: killing people (sometimes innocent), destroying buildings (sometimes innocent) and spying on people (sometimes innocent).

That is why war is a bad thing. But once a war starts, it is going to be finished one way or another, and I have a preference for it coming out one way rather than the other.

In previous wars, the country has done far worse than monitor telephone calls placed to jihad headquarters. FDR rounded up Japanese — many of them loyal American citizens — and threw them in internment camps. Most appallingly, at the same time, he let New York Times editors wander free.

Note the following about the Japanese internment:

1) The Supreme Court upheld the president's authority to intern the Japanese during wartime;

2) That case, Korematsu v. United States, is still good law;

3) There are no Japanese internment camps today. (Although the no-limit blackjack section at Caesar's Palace on a Saturday night comes pretty close.)

It's one or the other: Either we take the politically correct, scattershot approach and violate everyone's civil liberties, or we focus on the group threatening us and — in the worst-case scenario — run the risk of briefly violating the civil liberties of 1,000 people in a country of 300 million.

Of course, this is assuming I'm talking to people from the world of the normal. In the Democrats' world, there are two more options. Violate no one's civil liberties and get used to a lot more 9/11s, or the modified third option, preferred by Sen. John D. Rockefeller: Let the president do all the work and take all the heat for preventing another terrorist attack while you place a letter expressing your objections in a file cabinet as a small parchment tribute to your exquisite conscience.

COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

[Steve]

When we concede our liberties in order to gain security, then we've lost our battle against terrorism.

If you add the words "all of" in between "concede" and "our" then I'll agree with this statement. If you give me the option of (a) possibly having my phone conversations monitored for the country to be more secure, or (b) no monitoring to protect my civil liberties but having to fear an airplane I may fly on could be hijacked by terrorists, I think I'll take A.

[guitardude1985]

LIVE AND LET SPY
December 21, 2005


Apart from the day The New York Times goes out of business — and the stellar work Paul Krugman's column does twice a week helping people house-train their puppies — the newspaper has done the greatest thing it will ever do in its entire existence. (Calm down: No, the Times didn't hold an intervention for Frank Rich.)

Monday's Times carried a major expose on child molesters who use the Internet to lure their adolescent prey into performing sex acts for Webcams. In the course of investigating the story, reporter Kurt Eichenwald broke open a massive network of pedophiles, rescued a young man who had been abused for years, and led the Department of Justice to hundreds of child molesters.

I kept waiting for the catch, but apparently the Times does not yet believe pedophilia is covered by the "privacy right." They should stop covering politics and start covering more stories like this.

In order to report the story, the Times said it obtained:

— copies of online conversations and e-mail messages between minors and the creepy adults;

— records of payments to the minors;

— membership lists for Webcam sites;

— defunct sites stored in online archives;

— files retained on a victim's computer over several years;

— financial records, credit card processing data and other information;

— The Neverland Ranch's mailing list. (OK, I made that last one up.)

Would that the Times allowed the Bush administration similar investigative powers for Islamofacists in America!

Which brings me to this week's scandal about No Such Agency spying on "Americans." I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.

But if we must engage in a national debate on half-measures: After 9/11, any president who was not spying on people calling phone numbers associated with terrorists should be impeached for being an inept commander in chief.

With a huge gaping hole in lower Manhattan, I'm not sure why we have to keep reminding people, but we are at war. (Perhaps it's because of the media blackout on images of the 9/11 attack. We're not allowed to see those because seeing planes plowing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon might make us feel angry and jingoistic.)

Among the things that war entails are: killing people (sometimes innocent), destroying buildings (sometimes innocent) and spying on people (sometimes innocent).

That is why war is a bad thing. But once a war starts, it is going to be finished one way or another, and I have a preference for it coming out one way rather than the other.

In previous wars, the country has done far worse than monitor telephone calls placed to jihad headquarters. FDR rounded up Japanese — many of them loyal American citizens — and threw them in internment camps. Most appallingly, at the same time, he let New York Times editors wander free.

Note the following about the Japanese internment:

1) The Supreme Court upheld the president's authority to intern the Japanese during wartime;

2) That case, Korematsu v. United States, is still good law;

3) There are no Japanese internment camps today. (Although the no-limit blackjack section at Caesar's Palace on a Saturday night comes pretty close.)

It's one or the other: Either we take the politically correct, scattershot approach and violate everyone's civil liberties, or we focus on the group threatening us and — in the worst-case scenario — run the risk of briefly violating the civil liberties of 1,000 people in a country of 300 million.

Of course, this is assuming I'm talking to people from the world of the normal. In the Democrats' world, there are two more options. Violate no one's civil liberties and get used to a lot more 9/11s, or the modified third option, preferred by Sen. John D. Rockefeller: Let the president do all the work and take all the heat for preventing another terrorist attack while you place a letter expressing your objections in a file cabinet as a small parchment tribute to your exquisite conscience.

COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

God bless her, seriously...her logic can insessantly go without flaw. I do like her, but in a few instances she does get a tad bit radical. However, it's true...in a time of war seemingly extreme measures have to be taken. And with what roosevelt did...well if bush did that to arabs and muslims then he would almost certainly impeaced. In todays time, the inconvenence of having our phone calls monitored is didly squat compared to what the japaneese went through back in WWII.

[Steve]

Ann Coulter is radical at times, but she does make some very good points in many of her speeches and/or appearances. She's also really funny when thrown on a liberal panel of a talk show. If you've seen her appear on HBO's Real Time with Bill Mahr, she really sticks it to the liberals without fear and also has some really good jokes. She's also pretty good when she goes toe to toe with Colmes on Hanity and Colmes on Fox News! LOL

[guitardude1985]

Yea...she can be pretty funny and somewhat abraisive at the same time, sorta like dennis miller but he's more into great linguistic skills and witty metaphors and similies.