Bush is "BIG BROTHER" according to the New York Times

1984 arrived 17 years late in 2001

from JoeUser Forums





Today 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
politics
3,675 views 11 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Their Web site is still there. Do you think they were wrong?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
No Cheney has not had a chance to delete it yet! After all it is the day before Christmas!
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
True.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Looks like the cat must have the tongs of the Bushies on JoeUser for this one!
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Looks like the cat must have the tongs of the Bushies on JoeUser for this one!


No, we just don't feel like falling for the sheer stupidity of this. The problem with you is this. No matter how much proof is given to you to disprove your position, even if the source is unimpeachable....you will either ignore the proof or dismiss it out of hand. So have at it clueless one. You'll get no more points from me on this except the 5 your getting from this.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
There may be something that is stupid but it is not this revelation. It could be YOU!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
There may be something that is stupid but it is not this revelation. It could be


Please re-read reply #5.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
What proof have you given to show the New York Times story is untrue? You just saying it is NOT PROOF!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
What proof have you given to show the New York Times story is untrue? You just saying it is NOT PROOF!


COL, don't you know that if it comes from the New York Times, a known liberal rag, that it is automatically considered false. Proof need not be given to support that assertion. This simple phrase should help you remember for future postings: If it's liberal, it's a lie.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well on the first report it only took Bush one day the do a 180 and admit the story about the NSA was true. This story provides the logical answers as to HOW do the analysts select which calls or E-mails they listen to from the millions that take place each day. It also answers WHY Bush did not use the 1978 law. Unless you have very convincing information to the contrary, this New York Times story is most likely TRUE and we have Bush as BIG BROTHER! This has NOTHING to do with liberal. It is ALL about BUSH!
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Take a break from it COL. Peace on earth and all that. You can start slugging it out again on boxing day.