JU Conservatives Uptight over Domestic Espionage

from JoeUser Forums

The site overwhelmingly is on the side of Bush’s approach to spying at home. Echoing fear-mongers across the nation on the spy issue, there is little room for debate. If we don’t go along with the manner in which the CIA and NSA gather evidence the following is shouted out:

            Listening in on terrorists will prevent another Sept. 11. [as though helter-skelter listening in on tens of thousands of citizens will defy the huge odds]

            Blocking this espionage would undercut the war on terror. [I thought the war on terror was in Iraq and we’re not apparently doing too well even there listening in on insurgents]

            Listening in is essential to our national security, according to Bush. He doesn’t even bother to add the end justifies the means. [I thought the development of democracy in the Middle East was the essence of the war on terrorism]

            Can’t fool around with red-tape and allow the warm tip to grow cold.[who are they kidding here? — you mean they are that stupid to listen in without taping the conversations]

            Opposing monitoring at a fearful time when vigilance should be at a high level of alert is irresponsible. [Like letting sharp-pointed scissors and not checking cargo on airplanes, huh]

            Terrorists don’t play by the rules, so why should we?[the high and mighty should stoop to their miserable level]

            Senators are more concerned over civil rights than saving lives and weaken defense.[You said that I didn’t]

            The president is the only elected official sworn to protect citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic.[therefore the right to violate the law]

politics
21,844 views 82 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Listening in on terrorists will prevent another Sept. 11. [as though helter-skelter listening in on tens of thousands of citizens will defy the huge odds]


Steve - we are talking about roughly one wiretap per month, not the "helter-skelter listening in on tens of thousands of citizens" - get real. The taps have apparently been highly targeted, in part for the very reason you cite.

Can’t fool around with red-tape and allow the warm tip to grow cold.[who are they kidding here? — you mean they are that stupid to listen in without taping the conversations]


This actually is an issue - sometimes time can be of the essence, and you're smart enough to know that "taping" is not the issue.

I disagree that there is no room for debate. I'm in favor of an open discussion of the policy's merits and risks. There's no question that there is potential for "abuse," but the likelihood of that occurring in this context seems very low. The use of surveillance for political leverage or advantage over "enemies" (a la Hoover, Nixon) is a bigger concern, to me, anyway.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
how much the world has changed. conservatives were once so steadfastly vigilant in defense of personal liberty, so fiercely opposed to anything which might possibly--even unintentionally--be favorable to creeping governmental authoritarianism by interfering with the balance of powers.

now they seem to welcome it.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't think conservatives are gung-ho monitoring domestic terrorism suspects, we simply aren't spazzing out about it like some on the left are.

If a terrorist in Afghanistan is calling someone in the US, I want my government knowing about it.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Since when was Iraq the Alpha & Omega of the War on Terror? Just because it has become the epicenter does not mean Iraq is all there is to it.

No one said anything about listening in on everyone, that would be a waste of time. However, listening in on those who have already been identified as a threat makes perfect sense.

How do you "tape conversations" without listening in on them. Your circular logic is a bit dizzying there. ;~D

No one is suggesting that we give up our Constitutional rights in fighting against those who have declared war against us. On the other hand, if members of the groups that have declared war on us insist on operating within our borders, there is no reason to grand them anymore rights than we grant out enemies overseas.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
i always thought the attorney general's job was to enforce the law instead of actively devising strategies to undermine it.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

i always thought the attorney general's job was to enforce the law instead of actively devising strategies to undermine it.

Too bad that no one told Janet Reno that.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe I should get one of those "phone call listening" jobs. I am kind of nosey by nature.
...I'd probably get stuck listening to some vapid teenager talking about her prom date or hairstyle.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why is Bush telling us that warrants are required at the same time he is spying on Americans without the warrant he said are required and being used? There have been numerous clips where Bush has said we are using the courts both in conjunction with the Patriot Act and in general. He looks like a liar and fool when he says one thing while secretly doing another. If the 1978 law that allows wire taps needs updating to be effective to protect this country, WHY has Bush not requested changes to that law?

This is just another way in which Bush and Cheney have increased the strength of the Executive and weaken both the legislative and judicial branches of the federal Government. WE are closer to a Dictatorship today then ever in our history.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is just another way in which Bush and Cheney have increased the strength of the Executive and weaken both the legislative and judicial branches of the federal Government. WE are closer to a Dictatorship today then ever in our history.


And you still live in this country because? I mean if you think it's that bad, why not leave?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
What needs to happen is to change the leadership to people that respect our laws and follow policies that benefit the majority not just the fat cats! The vast majority of Americans are unhappy with the policies we are following. Sounds like Bush, Cheney and the conservative leadership in Congress needs to be changed!
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leave it to Gene to take this out into left field.

kingbee -

Your sweeping generalizations are just laziness. I'd like to know how you'd like us to protect ourselves from foreign terrorists using in-country contacts (who may be or appear to be legal citizens or just be here on valid or faked visas) to organize another 9/11 type of attack. What would be acceptable to you? Would you pay any attention to the people who have been active in doing so and consider them experts or would you assume anyone with knowledge in this are is not to be trusted?

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa

By using the 1978 law and not violating our laws and Constitution. If the 1978 law needs to be updated to better protect this country, why did Bush not request such a change? It was just easier for him to ignore our laws and Constitution.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why is Bush telling us that warrants are required at the same time he is spying on Americans without the warrant he said are required and being used? There have been numerous clips where Bush has said we are using the courts both in conjunction with the Patriot Act and in general. He looks like a liar and fool when he says one thing while secretly doing another. If the 1978 law that allows wire taps needs updating to be effective to protect this country, WHY has Bush not requested changes to that law?


I "asked" before for proof on this. That he did indeed in fact target Americans for wiretaps and that he did not get the warrents after th 72 time frame. Which if you actually read FISA from 1978. He can order them without warrents for up to 1 year as long as they do not involve taping conversations of Americans. Anyway, I asked for it before, now I'm going to demand the proof. Either show it or find a different drum to beat.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
how much the world has changed. conservatives were once so steadfastly vigilant in defense of personal liberty

I really don't think the majority of true conservatives support this type of government power, I believe it is only some users at JU who feel anything less then toeing the line to meet Bush Administration policy is problematic.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

how much the world has changed. conservatives were once so steadfastly vigilant in defense of personal liberty

I really don't think the majority of true conservatives support this type of government power, I believe it is only some users at JU who feel anything less then toeing the line to meet Bush Administration policy is problematic.

I believe that while conservatives do change, unfortunately, liberals never do.  hate, once embraced, is their only solace.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

Bush has admitted he DID NOT GET WARRANTS EVER! WHAT BETTER PROOF DO YOU WANT? DO YOU NOT BELIEVE YOUR PRESIDENT?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush has admitted he DID NOT GET WARRANTS EVER! WHAT BETTER PROOF DO YOU WANT? DO YOU NOT BELIEVE YOUR PRESIDENT?


WHERE? Show me the quote! I believe what he says but not when it comes just from your lips.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush has been on National TV starting last Saturday. His Radio broadcast Saturday which was also on TV was the first time he admitted allowing the NSA to wire tap without court orders. Cheney has also defended the Bush decision to wire tap WITHOUT warrants.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17603112-2,00.html?from=rss

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512210315dec21,1,3695230.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctr
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler

Is that good enough. You can go to Google and get LOTS MORE you idiot!
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
how much the world has changed. conservatives were once so steadfastly vigilant in defense of personal liberty

I really don't think the majority of true conservatives support this type of government power, I believe it is only some users at JU who feel anything less then toeing the line to meet Bush Administration policy is problematic.


Hey, Def -

The world has changed, probably forever. I don't like the notion of 1984(the book)-style surveillance any more than I ever did and I certainly remain "steadfastly vigilant in defense of personal liberty." That is not exactly what we're talking about here, however. As soon as I engage in contact with terrorist organizations or individual terrorists, intentionally or otherwise, I place that liberty, mine and yours, at risk. If it is true that the administration could easily have covered those taps with an after-the-fact request for authorization, I think they should have. In that sense, I disagree with the way it was handled (I'd call a technical foul), but I don't object to the fact that the Feds were paying attention. I also agree that we can't just leave the authority open-ended - the fact is the war on terrorism will never be over in the traditional sense and considering ourselves perpetually on a war-time footing leaves the door slightly ajar to subverting the authority for political gain, something we can't allow to happen. We need to have this discussion (a discussion, not just a series of sarcastic zingers) and sort out what risks we as a country are willing to take.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa

You have a point. I would have less of a problem with this process if I were sure this type of surveillance would ONLY be used to protect us from terrorism. However, when it becomes routine, how easy it would be to use it for control. There are many people that believed J. Edger Hoover had secret files on many important people and he used that information to keep people off his back and allow him to act freely. That is dangerous and I believe with people like Cheney there would be a temptation to misuse this process.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
[Picks self up off floor]

Gene -

I'm a bit plussed - a serious reply, one that I completely agree with (well, almost completely - close enough). Swash my buckles, hell has frozen over. Or maybe it's just the season.

I don't believe this type of surveillance has become "routine" - the numbers are so small it would be a stretch to characterize it that way. But I agree using it for control, as I suspect you mean it, would simply be wrong, not to mention unconstitutional.

I happen to believe there is no question Hoover used what he had to 1) remain immune to criticism, 2) maintain his power and 3) to wield political influence (or more accurately, undermine anyone he considered on the wrong side of things). While there were some good things about Hoover's organizational abilities, he was an evil human being at the core. Having been given the keys to the lockbox, he was too intellectually bankrupt to resist the temptation to use for his own ends the power that had been laid in his lap. Of course, and somewhat sadly, his power and influence were in inverse proportion to the courage of those he sought to intimidate, but we should never allow that to happen again.

As for Cheney, you are probably not the most neutral of observers so your opinion of what might or might not tempt him must be taken for what it's worth. I'm less worried about him infringing my freedom than I would be Hoover were he still alive.

Cheers and Merry Christmas,
Daiwa
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

The only President in recent times to use military force on its own citizens was Clinton.  Waco for example involved tanks for crying out loud.

Yet, suddnely the same people who were silent about the Clinton administration tossing away the constitution worry that we're "spying" on terrorist agents in our own borders?

The government isn't just randomly evesdropping. They're specifically looking at those who are in communication with known terrorist agents.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush has been on National TV starting last Saturday. His Radio broadcast Saturday which was also on TV was the first time he admitted allowing the NSA to wire tap without court orders. Cheney has also defended the Bush decision to wire tap WITHOUT warrants.

Link

Link


Well this is a total waste. Second link will not let me in even after registering.The first link, did you even read it? To both the first link and your reply. HE DOES NOT NEED A WARRENT to wiretap according to FISA. Only if the wiretap last longer than 72 hours. Unless you can show me that he ran the taps on the same person longer than 72 hours your arguement falls apart. Because he has not said that. So "now" who's the idiot?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
disagree that there is no room for debate. I'm in favor of an open discussion of the policy's merits and risks. There's no question that there is potential for "abuse," but the likelihood of that occurring in this context seems very low. The use of surveillance for political leverage or advantage over "enemies" (a la Hoover, Nixon) is a bigger concern, to me, anyway.


Fair enough

now they seem to welcome it.
Sure, seems that way.

If a terrorist in Afghanistan is calling someone in the US, I want my government knowing about it.
You're not alone on this; but I'd rather doubt he could be so readily defined as a terrorist unless he's stupid.