President Bush

[RedScare]

Guys, regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, isn't it obvious that there are times that this specific type of wire tapping is warranted? I certainly believe that the activity discussed here has merit on both sides, but to say that we shouldn't monitor selected conversations in regards to possible terrorism is foolish imo.

We are living in scary times and I for one want to know when someone mentions the B word over the phone.

This is not about WHETHER we can or should wiretap. There is a court that approves these taps, sometimes up to 72 hours AFTER the tap is used. What some of us object to is the secret tapping without court oversight that leads to more government intrusions on our liberties.

Next time some of you listen to the National Anthem, listen to the last line...land of the free, and the home of the brave.

"So which are you more concerned with? Terrorists "eroding your freedoms", or simply Terrorists "killing hundreds, if not thousands of U.S. citizens"? I'm more concerned with the latter - aren't you?"

This quote suggests we are neither.

BTW, Jeebus, to answer your question, I cannot say it strongly enough. I fear the eroding of my freedoms far more than a terrorist. Unfortunately, not nearly enough of my fellow citizens stand with me, so the Londoners' resolute statement, "We're not afraid", rings hollow here in the States, as does our Anthem.

[HeightsGuy]

Guys, regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, isn't it obvious that there are times that this specific type of wire tapping is warranted? I certainly believe that the activity discussed here has merit on both sides, but to say that we shouldn't monitor selected conversations in regards to possible terrorism is foolish imo.

We are living in scary times and I for one want to know when someone mentions the B word over the phone.

Gary, you seem one of the few that wants to discuss this logically. I think the best argument against this activity is that the President already has this power within the courts. He already has access to secret courts set up for just this sort of thing, and when all else fails he is already allowed by law to set up a wiretap and go back to that secret court after the fact to get the warrent. More than anything, it seems like this administration is thumbing their nose at that process and saying they don't even have to play by those (very liberal) rules.

[west20th]

You are basing this arguement on what you believe to be true, that Bush did something illegal. Show me where he did something illegal West.

It hasn't been established what Bush did was illegal or not. That needs to be looked into. Just because Bush and Condaleeza say it's legal doesn't make it so. If what they were doing is established to be illegal we need to see if the the wiretapping was abused. I'm sorry, just having Bush say it was only for security reasons isn't enough. Anyway, this argument is kind of mute until it has been established that what Bush did was illegal or not. You don't know that and I don't know. Now that it has come to light it will be investigated.

That is all we can ask for. But giving Bush and the government a blank check to trample our freedoms and rights. I don't think so.

[HeightsGuy]

You are basing this arguement on what you believe to be true, that Bush did something illegal. Show me where he did something illegal West. You THINK he bugged some phones of Americans like you and me. He didn't do that. And he is not going to do that, are you a secret Al-Queda operative, do YOU have terrorist ties ? If not, then what are you yammering about ? The Government authorized wiretaps for suspected Al-Queda agents, and suspected people who have ties to them. You got this whole Quaker thing mixed in with it, and they are 2 totally seperate deals. Obviously the Quakers had made some kind of comment or protest threatening either the Pres. or some other high ranking official or someone made an anonymous call saying you ought to look into these people . No WIRETAPPING occurred on these people, at least none that has come to light, unless you or Red have an article somewhere.

TJones, the argument you are making is no different than the argument gun-control activists used to make in trying to ban assult rifles. They used to say that taking away assult rifles had nothing to do with taking away handguns. Conservatives railed that taking away assult rifles is tantamount to taking away handguns, and that it's about an erosion of rights, that taking away assult rifles is only a first step.

That same argument can be made here.

[TJones]

Red, Patriot Act clearly states the option that the Government has in obtaining a wiretap. In waiting the 72 hours everytime to get the wiretap, don't you find it to be a little overkill on a warrant that would be granted "after the fact" anyway. The Government is not being will-nilly with the wiretaps, they are being strategic in all the accounts, and are using The Patriot Act for specific purposes, they aren't riding a fine line and they aren't being overzealous with it, I know you refuse to believe that they are only going after Abdullah and Ahkmed who have only been here 2 years and have not applied for citizenship, yet recieve nightly calls form Iran. I understand you might be afraid that this power will be used for evil. There has been no abuse of power as of yet, although I understand your position that this power could be abused, but it has yet to have been, so why are your feathers all ruffled ?

[Jeebus]

It wasn't like POOF and Hitler and the Nazis were there. It was an erosion and suspension of freedoms in Germany. So Jeebus. I suppose you would not have a problem with being held w/o charges. Shouldn't government officials be able to take us into custody, secretly and indeffinately. I mean as long as it keeps us safe. We can trust the government to look out for our best interests. Can't we?

What is your alternative then West20th? How do you recommend our government operate? Should the government make public every move its going to make before it makes it? If so, how will we stay one step ahead of criminal activity?

[RedScare]

FWIW, I believe what Bush has SAID he did, and will continue to do, IS illegal. The FISA Act requires a court to approve wiretaps on American communications. Bush says it doesn't apply to him. Obviously, my opinion doesn't count, but the Act specifically covers this, and I don't think the "war" lets him off the hook.

Regardless whether it is legal, there is a procedure to cover this. It is approved in a top-secret court. Who ARE they wiretapping, that they cannot let a judge approve it? This is why I think there is more to this than spying on "terrorists"...because it would have been too easy to follow the law....unless they are not tapping who they say they are.

[TJones]

TJones, the argument you are making is no different than the argument gun-control activists used to make in trying to ban assult rifles. They used to say that taking away assult rifles had nothing to do with taking away handguns. Conservatives railed that taking away assult rifles is tantamount to taking away handguns, and that it's about an erosion of rights, that taking away assult rifles is only a first step.

That same argument can be made here.

I can see the similarities in the right to privacy and the right to bear arms. If you kill someone with said assault rifle then you lose your right to bear arms, if you threaten an officer of the law with a handgun or assault rifle you also lose your right, if you commit any crime and are convicted, you lose your right. So are you saying that we have to wait until a "suspected terrorist" actually commits a chemical bombing that was called in from Bin Laden in Afganistan,to lose their right to privacy, or do you think we should use any means necessary to stop it.

edit) for my buddy Red, ok, so it is your BELIEF that what Bush is doing is wrong, but it is within the law, do you agree ? Approving a wiretap at a drop of a hat would obviously mean that there is a window of opportunity that exists, that with having to wait the 72 hours might possible jeapordize the gathering of vital info. Do you agree ? And I agree that there might possibly be something much darker and deeper at hand in all this, but until it is proven, I have to have faith that my chosen leader will do the right thing for my country until i can see for myself that something is amiss.

Edited December 20, 2005 by TJones

[RedScare]

The Government is not being will-nilly with the wiretaps, they are being strategic in all the accounts, and are using The Patriot Act for specific purposes, they aren't riding a fine line and they aren't being overzealous with it,

There are alleged to have been THOUSANDS of warrantless taps, just in the last 2 and a half years.

There has been no abuse of power as of yet, although I understand your position that this power could be abused, but it has yet to have been, so why are your feathers all ruffled ?

It may surprise you to know that the Patriot Act has been used far more often to prosecute drug dealers than terrorists. Some say that is its PRIMARY use. So, no, I would not agree with your statements.

Edited December 20, 2005 by RedScare

[nmainguy]

You are basing this arguement on what you believe to be true, that Bush did something illegal. Show me where he did something illegal West. You THINK he bugged some phones of Americans like you and me. He didn't do that. And he is not going to do that, are you a secret Al-Queda operative, do YOU have terrorist ties ? If not, then what are you yammering about ? The Government authorized wiretaps for suspected Al-Queda agents, and suspected people who have ties to them. You got this whole Quaker thing mixed in with it, and they are 2 totally seperate deals. Obviously the Quakers had made some kind of comment or protest threatening either the Pres. or some other high ranking official or someone made an anonymous call saying you ought to look into these people . No WIRETAPPING occurred on these people, at least none that has come to light, unless you or Red have an article somewhere.

100,000 Kurds would disagree with you about getting Saddam out of power also nmain.

TJ:

From what I've read, the Quakers threatened no one.

Here's the link from the local paper where the surveillance took place:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/bro...mostemailedlink

I have heard no one say what the DOD and the Bush Administration has done regarding domestic spying is legal. I hear "if you haven't done anything wrong...;this is a war on TERROR! Everything is different!".

No one has given a sound legal defense for the wiretaps. In April of 2004, Bush said he would never authorize national security wiretaps without a court order. He said that would be illegal.

20 months later-what's different now?

I don't want to fight with you, TJ. I just think we all need to have our concerns addressed.

[TJones]

It hasn't been established what Bush did was illegal or not. That needs to be looked into. Just because Bush and Condaleeza say it's legal doesn't make it so. If what they were doing is established to be illegal we need to see if the the wiretapping was abused. I'm sorry, just having Bush say it was only for security reasons isn't enough. Anyway, this argument is kind of mute until it has been established that what Bush did was illegal or not. You don't know that and I don't know. Now that it has come to light it will be investigated.

That is all we can ask for. But giving Bush and the government a blank check to trample our freedoms and rights. I don't think so.

I agree, I would never give any President a blank check, power, will be abused when gone unchecked. I am simply stating that he hasn't shown me anything that he has done wrong here. I will be the first to call him out here if he let's me down.

With all the watchdogs like yourselves out there, do you think the man wants to commit political suicide or jeapodize this great country of ours in any way shape or form ?

"It may surprise you to know that the Patriot Act has been used far more often to prosecute drug dealers than terrorists. Some say that is its PRIMARY use. So, no, I would not agree with your statements." - RedScare

OH MY GOD , Not those poor poor Drug Dealers, heaven forbid, they should all be released this instant ! For shame, using any means necessary to take coke away from the kids. NEXT ! I see no problem here either.

Edited December 20, 2005 by TJones

[HeightsGuy]

Red, Patriot Act clearly states the option that the Government has in obtaining a wiretap. In waiting the 72 hours everytime to get the wiretap, don't you find it to be a little overkill on a warrant that would be granted "after the fact" anyway. The Government is not being will-nilly with the wiretaps, they are being strategic in all the accounts, and are using The Patriot Act for specific purposes, they aren't riding a fine line and they aren't being overzealous with it, I know you refuse to believe that they are only going after Abdullah and Ahkmed who have only been here 2 years and have not applied for citizenship, yet recieve nightly calls form Iran. I understand you might be afraid that this power will be used for evil. There has been no abuse of power as of yet, although I understand your position that this power could be abused, but it has yet to have been, so why are your feathers all ruffled ?

TJones, that's what I'm saying. Under FISA, the president is already authorized to set up an immediate wiretap and go back to the secret court at a later time to get the warrant. What he is doing now is saying he can't even be bothered to go to the court later to get the warrant.

[west20th]

I agree, I would never give any President a blank check, power, will be abused when gone unchecked. I am simply stating that he hasn't shown me anything that he has done wrong here. I will be the first to call him out here if he let's me down.

With all the watchdogs like yourselves out there, do you think the man wants to commit political suicide or jeapodize this great country of ours in any way shape or form ?

"It may surprise you to know that the Patriot Act has been used far more often to prosecute drug dealers than terrorists. Some say that is its PRIMARY use. So, no, I would not agree with your statements." - RedScare

OH MY GOD , Not those poor poor Drug Dealers, heaven forbid, they should all be released this instant ! For shame, using any means necessary to take coke away from the kids. NEXT ! I see no problem here either.

Ah well. The real news is just too stressful. I think I'll just immerse myself into the Enquirer (the one at the supermarket not Fox news) for a while. Give me stories about Hillary's secret meetings with aliens (from other planets, probably illegal) to George W. hitting the bottle again, "Laura saw him ready to drink that double shot and she screamed, George NO!!!". The news the others are afraid to print!

Back to the Heights forum for me until they decide if what George did was illegal or not.

Edited December 20, 2005 by west20th

[TJones]

TJones, that's what I'm saying. Under FISA, the president is already authorized to set up an immediate wiretap and go back to the secret court at a later time to get the warrant. What he is doing now is saying he can't even be bothered to go to the court later to get the warrant.

I can see that, but I don't believe that's the case. Just like every President before him, he has his handlers that instruct him and keep him abreast of the situation. Does it say he must go back and get the warrant later, and if it does, in what time frame he has to do it in ? Granted, the Patriot Act is a new piece of law, I feel confident he is upholding it.

Another problem I have is that the media and the Senators act like he just went out and didn;t tell a soul he was going to authorize the taps, when the necessary people have been advised the whole time.

Edited December 20, 2005 by TJones

[HeightsGuy]

I can see the similarities in the right to privacy and the right to bear arms. If you kill someone with said assault rifle then you lose your right to bear arms, if you threaten an officer of the law with a handgun or assault rifle you also lose your right, if you commit any crime and are convicted, you lose your right. So are you saying that we have to wait until a "suspected terrorist" actually commits a chemical bombing that was called in from Bin Laden in Afganistan,to lose their right to privacy, or do you think we should use any means necessary to stop it.

No TJones, you're not understanding what I said. The argument against an assult rifle ban is that, if we give the government the goahead to ban assult rifles, next they will want to take away handguns. That same argument can be made here. As of now, the president says he will only spy on suspected terrorists. Who's to say he won't want to expand those powers next year and start spying on peace protesters. What then? It's all about giving an inch and taking a mile. Oh, sure, we can say all day Bush would never do something like that, but why even give someone the chance?

It's about doing things the right way, not the easy way.

[nmainguy]

George W. hitting the bottle again, "Laura saw him ready to drink that double shot and she screamed, George NO!!!".

No west...what Laura said was "GEORGE! Not another 6 pack. That pretzel excuse the last time went only so far!!!"

[west20th]

What is your alternative then West20th? How do you recommend our government operate? Should the government make public every move its going to make before it makes it? If so, how will we stay one step ahead of criminal activity?

Jeebus what is YOUR alternative? How far do we let the government go? Where does their ignoring our rights pass from "for national security" to being oppressive? What wouldn't you let the government do in the name of national security? Do you believe that they should be at all limited?

No west...what Laura said was "GEORGE! Not another 6 pack. That pretzel excuse the last time went only so far!!!"

How dare you question the authenticity of an Enquirer headline!!! You sir should have your wires tapped!

Edited December 20, 2005 by west20th

[HeightsGuy]

I can see that, but I don't believe that's the case. Just like every President before him, he has his handlers that instruct him and keep him abreast of the situation. Does it say he must go back and get the warrant later, and if it does, in what time frame he has to do it in ? Granted, the Patriot Act is a new piece of law, I feel confident he is upholding it.

Another problem I have is that the media and the Senators act like he just went out and didn;t tell a soul he was going to authorize the taps, when the necessary people have been advised the whole time.

TJones, that is the case. FISA and the Patriot Act allow the government to set up wiretaps in emergencies without a warrant as long as they go back at a later time to get said warrant. It's a checks and balances thing. It assumes the government will make the right choices, but provides a check to be sure. This secret program usurps that check. I don't care if Bush is Mother Theresa, without that check it means he can spy on anyone he wants to. And it's all secret. He says he is only wiretapping suspected terrorists, and I believe him, but in all honesty he could be wiretapping anyone at this point the other two branches of the government have no say in the matter.

Some could call that dictatorial even if no one would ever accuse Bush of being a dictator.

[TJones]

...

Edited December 21, 2005 by TJones

[westguy]

He could also wiretap the other branches of government under his version. Wouldn't that step over the checks and balances?

[TJones]

He could also wiretap the other branches of government under his version. Wouldn't that step over the checks and balances?

Well, it appears that in time of war, no one is immune, but there has to be a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER . If the ends don't justify the means, and it was done lawfully or unlawfully, then you have a problem. I am thinking that is why some Dem. members of congress filibustered some aspects of the Patriot Act getting reinstated, because perhaps some decisions were made too hastily, but at what costs does it bring, who knows until it happens.

Edited December 21, 2005 by TJones

[Jeebus]

Jeebus what is YOUR alternative? How far do we let the government go? Where does their ignoring our rights pass from "for national security" to being oppressive? What wouldn't you let the government do in the name of national security? Do you believe that they should be at all limited?

I have no alternative as I'm satisfied with the current system. It is you who seems unsatisfied, which is why I asked for your alternative. I'm okay with the government secretly montioring people. There are over 250 million of us. Logistically speaking, if the government is watching you then either you're up to no good, or someone is just out to get you. Either way you're screwed though. You've probably got 100 times the chance of being mugged, being a victim of identity theft, or getting hit by a drunk driver than you do of the government taking interest in you. Don't let TV distort your perception by buying into the "big brother is gonna get you" b.s.

So in the mean time, I'm just going to keep paying my taxes. What else should I do? And still you haven't answered my original question of "What's your alternative?"

[westguy]

Haven't heard this in a couple of decades:

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show

Now we have to watch out for those Quaker terrorists and those commie Catholics.

[RedScare]

Granted, the Patriot Act is a new piece of law, I feel confident he is upholding it.

The law Bush is suspected of violating was passed in 1978...28 years ago.

[TJones]

The law Bush is suspected of violating was passed in 1978...28 years ago.

I know they are talking about the FISA, but isn't Bush going by Patriot Act standards ?

[west20th]

Logistically speaking, if the government is watching you then either you're up to no good, or someone is just out to get you. Either way you're screwed though.

Ah. I get it now. Act like a good American (as defined by the right-wing), talk like a good American and work for the collective good of the state and the government will leave you alone. I understand completely now commrade.

[HeightsGuy]

Looks like us libs aren't the only ones scratching our heads over this, a judge has resigned and two more Republican Senators (Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel) have come out asking questions whether this is right. The Rush Limbaugh machine already calls Hagel a traitor to the Republican party over the gang of seven stuff, now it's sure to be Snowe's turn to get the Rush treatment.

Judge Resigns Over Secret Surveillance

[TJones]

Ah. I get it now. Act like a good American (as defined by the right-wing), talk like a good American and work for the collective good of the state and the government will leave you alone. I understand completely now commrade.

What exactly is the (left-wing) ideaology of how to act like a good American? Can you define the (right-wing) for us ? I'm also just guessing that you own your own business ? Thanks in advance.

[RedScare]

What exactly is the (left-wing) ideaology of how to act like a good American? Can you define the (right-wing) for us ? I'm also just guessing that you own your own business ? Thanks in advance.

You know, TJ is right in a way. I would have expected more outrage by "right wingers" over a secret government program to spy on its own citizens. The libertarian wing of the Republican Party is for less government and more privacy, so the number of people supporting the president on this suggests to me more of a "cult of personality" than a political ideology. In other words, it seems that supporting Bush is more important to a significant portion of the population than personal views on the limits of the federal government.

TJ, the Patriot Act does not give the president the right to spy on citizens without a warrant. The president claims this authority because we "are in a war". Many legal scholars disagree. My personal opinion is that it is illegal, and that the president got terrible legal advice on the matter. Hopefully, Congress has the guts to address the issue. This strikes at the heart of our Constitutional right to privacy.

[west20th]

What exactly is the (left-wing) ideaology of how to act like a good American? Can you define the (right-wing) for us ? I'm also just guessing that you own your own business ? Thanks in advance.

What I meant by "as defined by the right wing" is that the right wing is now in power. If these illegal (if they are deemed illegal) wiretaps are allowed to continue through 2008 into Hillary's presidency (sorry to make you toss your breakfast TJ) then they will be left wing. What does my owning a business have to do with anything?

Edited December 21, 2005 by west20th