stevendedalus stevendedalus

JU Conservatives Uptight over Domestic Espionage

▼

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
21,901 views 82 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm a "JU Conservative" and I'm not "uptight" about it.
Sometimes
I feel you don't really know what you are.
How do you "tape conversations" without listening in on them. Your circular logic is a bit dizzying there. ;~D
Because the secret court allows it or without one they are not going to listen for 72 hours without at least taking notes and if they don't then there's nothing there and indeed a waste of time.

who have already been identified as a threat makes perfect sense.

No, they should be arrested.

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.
Once again, I enjoy your satire! I can visulize these agents listening in on teenage chat and wishing they could be out in the field tracking down terrorists.


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?

It might disturb their love for double-speak.

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.
You could be right.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

Just so we're clear on what the Bush position is (Whether you agree with it or not is a different issue)

Bush believes that the Sept 13, 2001 resolution was effectively a declaration of war and that as part of the executive branch's war powers under the constitution the President has the power to do as he sees fit to fight that war even if it means surveilence within the country.

It's worth remembering the kinds of things the President Lincoln did during the civil war.  Similarly, Wilson's actions in World War I to Americans (protesters were jailed for protesting) as well as Roosevelt's interning of American citizens in World War II.

The point being that the historically speaking, when the US is at war, the President is given broad powers. 

 

Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe that while conservatives do change, unfortunately, liberals never do. hate, once embraced, is their only solace.
you wax poetic on the dark side--hate?

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.
Very well said; however when pompous correctiveness reigns, sarcasm is a tool to take the wind out.

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

Ah, such proficiency devoutly to be wished!
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.
Oh, lord, I can't believe you would resort to this extraneous illustration.

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.
Hoover, however, never took us to war on misrepresentation that Cheney still spews. But it's nice to read that you at least give COL a break once in a while.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
The point being that the historically speaking, when the US is at war, the President is given broad powers.
I agree, but other wars did not have the extraordinary options to spy domestically as now. Intercepting messages enroute is one thing--but not open without a court order sealed letters once mailed--but checking into e-mail and chat rooms is hardly a targeted method. Besides, you make presidents sound like unscrupulous dictators.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
at the same time he is spying on Americans without the warrant he said are required and being used?


Sounds to me like someone needs a mind melt. Then again, a mind melt won't help alleviate thoughts like this. Best guess it's founded in an floating arm chair where reclining minds can't see.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

I agree, but other wars did not have the extraordinary options to spy domestically as now. Intercepting messages enroute is one thing--but not open without a court order sealed letters once mailed--but checking into e-mail and chat rooms is hardly a targeted method. Besides, you make presidents sound like unscrupulous dictators.

You are not correct.  The methods have changed due to technology.  But that is all.  The end result is more subtle now, but no different.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
a week after the initial admission--and in contrast to the very limited program described then--it now appears very likely this was a data mining operation very much like the one proposed by the tia (which was rejected by the congress).

considering this is just the most recently discovered attempt at an end-run around the law and common decency, let me pose what seems to be an obvious question: at what point will you finally agree this administration is convinced it's a law unto itself?
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
considering this is just the most recently discovered attempt at an end-run around the law and common decency, let me pose what seems to be an obvious question: at what point will you finally agree this administration is convinced it's a law unto itself?


When they are actually "convicted" of doing something illegal! Until then it's all hearsay or someones opinion that they have done something wrong. GW said he used wiretaps without a warrent. Okay. Is it against the law? We don't know that now do we? Because we are not privy to all the details surrounding it. This "is" America, isn't it? Innocent until proven guilty ring a bell? So now I'll ask "you" an obvious question KB. "At what point will you finally agree this administration gets its day in court BEFORE you sit there and convince yourself that they're guilty of something"?
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
When they are actually "convicted" of doing something illegal!


no conviction is needed for the administration to stop its assaults on the balance of power.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
When they are actually "convicted" of doing something illegal!


no conviction is needed for the administration to stop its assaults on the balance of power.


See, therein lies the problem. Until they are convicted of something wrong, what you're saying is just an opinion, your opinion. And like mine....not worth a lot.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yesterday the New York Times answered the question of WHY BUSH IGNORED THE 1978 F.I.S.A. law. What is taking place at NSA is eavesdropping on millions of calls and E-mails with sophisticated computers that harvest those calls and E-mails that meet the patterns that the NSA has established. The messages that are selected by the computer systems are then monitored by analysts to determine if they are harmless or contain information relating to our security.

Thus, the statements by Bush and his senior aids that stressed the executive order allowing warrant less surveillance was limited was untrue. The NSA, under the President’s secret order, has become Big Brother. The number of total calls and E-mails monitored by the computers at the NSA most likely number in the millions each day. Calls analysts review which the computers identify of potential interest could be in the thousands each day and the limited number acknowledged by Bush are those analysts actually listen to in detail.

Now we know WHY Bush was so unhappy when the New York Times first ran this story. WE also know WHY Bush is not obtaining warrants under the 1978 law. The volume is so great, warrants either before or within 72 hours is impossible. The only practical way they could in part comply with the law is to seek warrants for those messages the analysts believe have security implications AFTER THE FACT.
This is the link to the New York Times artticle. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html?th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1135436997-BxsIb0sDi3aejNbe/KWATw
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yesterday the New York Times answered the question of WHY BUSH IGNORED THE 1978 F.I.S.A. law. What is taking place at NSA is eavesdropping on millions of calls and E-mails with sophisticated computers that harvest those calls and E-mails that meet the patterns that the NSA has established. The messages that are selected by the computer systems are then monitored by analysts to determine if they are harmless or contain information relating to our security.

Thus, the statements by Bush and his senior aids that stressed the executive order allowing warrant less surveillance was limited was untrue. The NSA, under the President’s secret order, has become Big Brother. The number of total calls and E-mails monitored by the computers at the NSA most likely number in the millions each day. Calls analysts review which the computers identify of potential interest could be in the thousands each day and the limited number acknowledged by Bush are those analysts actually listen to in detail.

Now we know WHY Bush was so unhappy when the New York Times first ran this story. WE also know WHY Bush is not obtaining warrants under the 1978 law. The volume is so great, warrants either before or within 72 hours is impossible. The only practical way they could in part comply with the law is to seek warrants for those messages the analysts believe have security implications AFTER THE FACT.
This is the link to the New York Times artticle. Link


Answer this question col....if this is such a hot story, why is the NYT the only paper pushing it?
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nah, I don't think for a second that the conservative end of JU is overwhelmingly supportive. I think most of us have reserved judgment either way. Some of the more outspoken have been supportive, sure, but when you start adding up the names I don' think you can call it overwhelming.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
The NYT was 100% on with first story that caused Bush to do a 180 in a single day. It also answers two key questions.

First, how the NSA staff chooses from the millions of messages the ones they will listen to?

Second, it answers why Bush choose NOT to use the 1978 law. They are on a fishing expedition and the number of calls is too great. By allowing the computers to review millions of calls and sort out those that may be of interest, they cover the waterfront i.e. 1984.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Second, it answers why Bush choose NOT to use the 1978 law. They are on a fishing expedition and the number of calls is too great. By allowing the computers to review millions of calls and sort out those that may be of interest, they cover the waterfront i.e. 1984.


What a crock of ca-ca!!! They have been allowed to sift through "1%" of all domestic calls. The actual wiretaps were for very "specific" individuals. But I've come to expect no less from you! This is the general consensus of the NYT aricle. "You" call this a "fishing" expidition. Most others would call this gathering intel.


The New York Times article contains a number of truly-astounding allegations, many of which are based on information gathered from anonymous government sources.


Notice how no one will come forward to back-up their "allegations".
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
The term is Data-Mining and it amounts to fishing. The issue is very simple, did Bush violate the law? The court will need to determine that and if he did he needs to be held accountable!
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don' think you can call it overwhelming.
I might grant you that; however, in some comment of yours you said you were categorized as liberal. There are, of course, openminded conservatives is what I would label you.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
In spite of all these comments, it is clear that many of you are on the side of aggressively invading privacy indiscriminately. 
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't put words in our mouths, Steve. We can speak for ourselves. I, for one, am not "on the side of aggressively invading privacy indiscriminately." I am for preventing another tragic terrorist attack if at all possible. We need to figure out how we can do that without all privacy being lost.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
stop plotting your terrorist activities via telephone


i've always felt sedition should only be conducted face-to-face, but avoiding phones is just one aspect. what about those conspiratorial emails, traitorous credit card transactions, etc.? ya know how difficult it is keeping your tuna trawls free of the odd incidental dolphin and sea turtle...or 20.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
all you folks
??????
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
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. - Daiwa

Thank you for a human answer, Daiwa. I appreciate your attitude and fully agree with you.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
We need to have Congress understand what Bush is doing and then decide how far he will be allowed to go. Bush just telling us he has the legal authority and that he needs to do what he is doing in not acceptable. The 1978 law was enacted by Congress to control the very thing that Bush is doing. It took three years to craft that law after Nixon. We can not simply allow Bush to bypass this law.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, Col, you see no difference between spying on political opponents and wiretapping civil rights activists, and tapping phone numbers found on computers on raids Al Qaeda hideouts in other countries?

I mean, if you have proof that Bush has been using the NSA to make dirty on the DNC or someone like that, speak up, but so far Bush seems to be doing what he claims to, doesn't he?
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
I did not say that. WHAT I SAID is Congress needs to understand WHAT Bush has been doing and then decide HOW FAR THE President will be allowed to go. That was what the 1978 law was about and Bush has admitted he is ignoring the requirements of that law!