Bush admits he authorised spying
"President George W Bush has admitted he authorised secret monitoring of communications within the United States in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks.
In his weekly address, he confirmed a report which appeared in the New York Times on Friday - and attacked it.
Because of the newspaper report, "our enemies have learned information they should not have", he said.
He said the programme was reviewed every 45 days, and insisted he had upheld the law in defending Americans.
Senators of both Mr Bush's Republican party and the opposition Democrats expressed concerns about the programme on Friday.
'Big Brother'
Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , said "there is no doubt that this is inappropriate", adding that Senate hearings would be held early next year as "a very, very high priority".
"This is Big Brother run amok," was the reaction of Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy.
Senator Russell Feingold, another Democrat, called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American".
But in his address on Saturday, Mr Bush said the programme was "critical to saving American lives".
"The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws to protect them and our civil liberties," he said.
The New York Times reported on Friday that Mr Bush had signed a secret presidential order following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the National Security Agency to track the international telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral to the courts.
Previously, surveillance on American soil was generally limited to foreign embassies.
American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil. "
Ok, someone try to justify Bush spying on American w/o probable cause.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:26 am Posts: 7994 Location: Philadelphia
but he is just "protecting the american people".
Chalk this up as another in a long list of Bush fuckups. How long we have with this clown in office? 3 more years? I'd feel better with Gary Busey in office.
_________________ Something tells me that the first mousetrap wasn't designed to catch mice at all, but to protect little cheese "gems" from burglars.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:58 am Posts: 2105 Location: Austin
jimmac24 wrote:
but he is just "protecting the american people".
Chalk this up as another in a long list of Bush fuckups. How long we have with this clown in office? 3 more years? I'd feel better with Gary Busey in office.
You are an Eagles, fan, nobody cares what you think
I don't have the mental capacity to split my "FBI keeps databases on me" and my "NSA is spying on me" debates. I'll admit you're right, but I still think merging would make good sense.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
I can't find a written article, but they were saying on NPR that when they authorized Bush's use of force in 2002, Congress also included wording that made this exact action a crime. If anyone can find an article to back me up, I'd appreciate it.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
I can't find a written article, but they were saying on NPR that when they authorized Bush's use of force in 2002, Congress also included wording that made this exact action a crime. If anyone can find an article to back me up, I'd appreciate it.
I couldn't find anything like that in the actual resolution, but since I'm at work and bored, I'll keep looking.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
B as Jack Skellington wrote:
I can't find a written article, but they were saying on NPR that when they authorized Bush's use of force in 2002, Congress also included wording that made this exact action a crime. If anyone can find an article to back me up, I'd appreciate it.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:22 am Posts: 1603 Location: Buffalo
President Bush speaking about the legality of wiretaps just last year.
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
-- GW Bush, in a speech on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall, Buffalo, New York
April 20, 2004
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
B as Jack Skellington wrote:
I can't find a written article, but they were saying on NPR that when they authorized Bush's use of force in 2002, Congress also included wording that made this exact action a crime. If anyone can find an article to back me up, I'd appreciate it.
Sorry, they were talking about FISA (1978) which allows phone tapping for only 15 days w/o a warrant and only during a time of war. Bush is saying that his authorization of force from 2001 (below) eliminates that restriction and basically makes him a dictator.
Congress wrote:
Congressional Record: September 14, 2001 (House) Page H5638
AUTHORIZING USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR RECENT ATTACKS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
The text of H.J. Res. 64 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 64
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force".
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any further acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.-- (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:52 pm Posts: 1727 Location: Earth Gender: Male
Quote:
President Bush speaking about the legality of wiretaps just last year.
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." -- GW Bush, in a speech on the USA Patriot Act Kleinshans Music Hall, Buffalo, New York April 20, 2004
Good find vegman. I always these type of quotes, it ranks up there with the Bin Laden one.
_________________ "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." -Noam Chomsky
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:50 pm Posts: 10229 Location: WA (aka Waaaaaaaahhhh!!) Gender: Male
"The US Government is spying on the American people and tapping their phones." <-- That's the line the media feeds you.
I love how they leave out the part that the gov't was tapping only the international phone calls made by about 500 people who have suspected links to Al Qaeda.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:02 pm Posts: 10690 Location: Lost in Twilight's Blue
Bammer wrote:
"The US Government is spying on the American people and tapping their phones." <-- That's the line the media feeds you.
I love how they leave out the part that the gov't was tapping only the international phone calls made by about 500 people who have suspected links to Al Qaeda.
I think it's fine that they do the phone taps as a matter of security, but they have to be accountable to the law as well. I don't think that's too much to ask of these guys, considering they can make or even change laws to suit these needs. When they go around the law to do what they want, you can't help but feel distrustful of their intentions. If you allow them to not be held to any sort of standard, there's really nothing there stopping them from using this same sort of tactic to spy on anyone else they want, for whatever reason they want, and that's the concern here.
_________________ Scared to say what is your passion, So slag it all, Bitter's in fashion, Fear of failure's all you've started, The jury is in, verdict: Retarded
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
Mercury wrote:
Bammer wrote:
"The US Government is spying on the American people and tapping their phones." <-- That's the line the media feeds you.
I love how they leave out the part that the gov't was tapping only the international phone calls made by about 500 people who have suspected links to Al Qaeda.
I think it's fine that they do the phone taps as a matter of security, but they have to be accountable to the law as well. I don't think that's too much to ask of these guys, considering they can make or even change laws to suit these needs. When they go around the law to do what they want, you can't help but feel distrustful of their intentions. If you allow them to not be held to any sort of standard, there's really nothing there stopping them from using this same sort of tactic to spy on anyone else they want, for whatever reason they want, and that's the concern here.
This is kind of where I was going to go with my reply, so let me just clarify something:
Bammer, would you be OK with such an action as long as an entity independent of the executive gov't--say, a judge--signs off on a warrant for such a activity? I just can't trust any singular entity with making such searches.
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:41 am Posts: 14208 Location: Lexington, KY Gender: Male
Bammer wrote:
"The US Government is spying on the American people and tapping their phones." <-- That's the line the media feeds you.
I love how they leave out the part that the gov't was tapping only the international phone calls made by about 500 people who have suspected links to Al Qaeda.
But are you going to trust these repetitive liars that the gov't is only going to tap calls that go out of the U.S. to terrorist suspects? Since they are allowing the tapping without a court warrant, I would say they pretty much can spy on anybody they wanted if they like.
"The US Government is spying on the American people and tapping their phones." <-- That's the line the media feeds you.
I love how they leave out the part that the gov't was tapping only the international phone calls made by about 500 people who have suspected links to Al Qaeda.
But are you going to trust these repetitive liars that the gov't is only going to tap calls that go out of the U.S. to terrorist suspects? Since they are allowing the tapping without a court warrant, I would say they pretty much can spy on anybody they wanted if they like.
are you worried that they are going to hear you having phone sex with your gf?
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:41 am Posts: 14208 Location: Lexington, KY Gender: Male
Peeps wrote:
lefty wrote:
Bammer wrote:
"The US Government is spying on the American people and tapping their phones." <-- That's the line the media feeds you.
I love how they leave out the part that the gov't was tapping only the international phone calls made by about 500 people who have suspected links to Al Qaeda.
But are you going to trust these repetitive liars that the gov't is only going to tap calls that go out of the U.S. to terrorist suspects? Since they are allowing the tapping without a court warrant, I would say they pretty much can spy on anybody they wanted if they like.
are you worried that they are going to hear you having phone sex with your gf?
I wish I had a gf I could have phone sex with so then I could be worried.
i want to say its the fbi, though it could be the cia, but they have a program called Carnivore (or some type of spelling with that name), its supposed to be the ultimate in wiretapping, it monitors all electronic communications coming from a residence.
if they use this program, odds are they are pretty sure, and rightly so, that you are doing something you shouldnt
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
I'll admit you're right, but I still think merging would make good sense.
