Slashdot Mirror
Bush Backed Spying On Americans
jb.hl.com writes "President Bush allowed security agents to eavesdrop on people inside the U.S. without court approval after 9/11, the New York Times has reported. The report says that under a 2002 presidential order, the National Security Agency has been unconstitutionally and illegally monitoring international communications of hundreds in the U.S. When asked about the programme on U.S. TV, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said, 'The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken.'"
That aside: Bad week for the Neocons.
First, they're not allowed to torture people anymore (not that we ever did, right? I mean, I'm sure the folks at those secret CIA prisons in eastern Europe were Geneva Convention poster boys). Then the PATRIOT act gets blocked so they have to go deal with those darn activist judges to get warrants again. Now, people are acting like the President can't override statute with an executive order! Next thing you know, people will actually want leaders who follow the Constitution. Heck, this keeps up and nobody'll want to be President of the United States anymore - we're just takin' all the fun out of it.
I personally look forward to the day when the GOP has something to do with, you know, conservatism again. "Spend responsibly" rolls off the tounge better than "constant wanton abuse of power". Still, at least it was just violation of the basic agreement that forms the basis of our government and not, you know, a blowjob. Otherwise the nation might have to sit through another impeachment.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
lawfully != ethically
Hmm...wasn't there another president who got in trouble for spying on other americans? Watershed...waterfall...waterbed...definitely water-something...
Oh yeah! Here it is!
And this is just the latest of Dubya and Company's shocking assaults against their own nation...sadly, an offence that would have been considered grounds for immediate impeachment (not to mention additional criminal prosecution) thirty years ago hardly raises an eyebrow today. Apparently, we're used to this sort of thing by now.
I'm pretty sure that this is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they fought and died so that we might have a nation free from tyranny.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
He acted lawfully the same way that the mob boss doesn't actually "kill" someone, they just happen to know the guys that shot the victim. In the words of John Gotti, "It's good to have guns around ... but you don't want to carry a gun. You might get arrested."
stuff |
I think what she means is: "Since the president defines what is legal, then what the president does, is, by definition, legal." Very much in keeping with the administration's claims of "Presidential Infalibility".
I am not a crackpot.
How many crimes does Monkeyboy have to commit before he is held to account? There isn't a single person on death row or executed in the history of the USA who has who has ordered so many killings, kidnappings and tortures. His utter contempt for the constitution and human rights is the root of the many forms of his criminality. Ordering illegal spying on thousands of Americans should by itself be enough to get him impeached, tried and sentenced to life in prison, but on the scale of his other misdeeds it barely deserves mention.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Gonzales should be quickly tried and promptly executed as a deterrent to our future officials who might think that they can use power for their own purposes rather than as servants of the electorate. We need to put our so-called leaders in permanent mortal fear of even getting close to violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution. Until then, they will continue to think that they can rule us rather than represent us.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Just playing devils advocate for a moment (since it appears that Slashthink(TM) is in full force), but isn't this EXACTLY the type of thing that the Patriot Act made legal? I'm not saying that I like the Patriot Act, but it did get passed by a majority of the house and senate.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
When Bush can say the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper"
how is anyone surprised?
BTW, for those who didnt notice, the times held the story for a YEAR.
And this guy broke the story.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
First of all, the news the article is relaying is a year old: the reporters witheld the information for a year for security reasons. Note they still released it after only removing "some" of the issues that the security people had with the article. Even the article acknowledges that since then Bush had the Department of Justice look over and revise the program. Second, the original eavesdropping was only on traffic into and out of the country, not on internal traffic. Also, the initial impetus for monitering some of this traffic was a couple of captured terrorist's cell phones and computers. The numbers that they recieved from those and several similar and related captures are the numbers that they've been monitering. Again, they've since limited their criteria even further. For an excellent view of the right-wing's side of the debate check out: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004090.htm
Do you, GOP fans, want the NSA reading your email?
You don't think that didn't happen with the presidents "offical" aproval? Let's not get out of hand here.
But we already know what will happen, the Dems will take the presidents office in 2008 maybe and the same crap will be pulled but instead we'll just have the other half saving the same thing...
Washington is not going to change until you get some real competition in there and that means a third party. If we don't get motivated to throw another party into the mix and force parties to do more than lie and smile we're just going to have the same thing again and again, a new Waco, a new 9/11, a new Watergate, a new infringement somewhere somehow and the finger pointing will continue and so will business as usual.
You don't seriously think a Democrat is any more forthright than a Republican? Hell, they feed off each other and at the same time use each other as crutches. They know and accept this business deal. They know people accept them as the only game in town.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
If this is true, it only shows how corrupt our laws have become. No serious person could think that Jefferson, Franklin and the other Constitution authors would ever think it's OK for a president to do something like this.
I'm not certain what you mean by "less kind intent".
No Democrat would deny Senator Lieberman the right to say or do anything that he likes; but if he's going to insist on taking a position contrary to what the majority of his party believes in, he will not get the support of, or access to, the resouces of the party - plain and simple.
The Republicans coined a term for this kind of politician as they also have a few mavericks who refuse to toe the party line...they call 'em RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). We have a DINO in Mr. Lieberman.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
At some point the question becomes: which of Bush's TLAs is not illegally spying on us?
is that people seem to forget that the previous president was nearly impeached for lying about a blowjob in the oval office.
Where are the calls to impeach Bush over his bloody lies?
Apparently you drunk the kool aide and I assume you voted for the SOB. You don't "have" to support a President that is abusing power. We here back in 1776 call in a democracsy and people have the right to support who they want not who they are told they have to support. I support the country and I support the troops. I do not support Bush and I do not support the war. Bush is a facist that makes jokes about how much easier it'd be if it was a dictatorship. Not sure how much easier he wants it given he gets pretty much everything he wants as it is. Haliburton and others are raping this country and Bush and his cronies are holding us down while we are gang rapped. Our rights have been taken away and yet studies have shown we aren't really any safer. Making us safer was never the issue. This is about power and robbing us blind. He deserves to be impeached. They impeached Clinton for lying about cheating on his wife. Bush is breaking laws that affect us all and has killed tens of thousands of people doing it, over two thousand americans. He's killed nearly as many americans as the terrorist and the war is still going on. What standard do you have for impeachment? "Well first they have to be a Democart" apparently. I'm not a Democrat, I don't like either party. Just how much lying cheating and stealing can go on before we do impeach him? He was making a case for invading Iran until some one pointed out to him that we don't have any troops to spare. If we really did get attacked now we'd be in a desperate situation. All our forces are aimed at Iraq. They've even been pulling them out of Europe to support the war. He says we'll pull out 30,000 this year. Well he sent 15,000 more last summer and the fighting hasn't slowed. Welcome to Viet Nam II the sequel. Funny a lot of us saw it coming. Wonder why he didn't?
Where are Dubya's defenders now?
Waiting for the retraction in the NYT in a couple of weeks.
Washington is not going to change until you get some real competition in there and that means a third party.
Yes, because this holy "third party" will be so far detached from the two parties we currently have that none of this bullshit will go on, right? Oooh, you are thinking that we're going to get rid of ALL of those in office that are part of the "two party" system and replace them *all* with members from the "third party".
Technically, the New-aged GOP is exactly that, a "third party" that no one has ever seen in America before. One where ignorance, blatant disregard for everything the US stands for, and religious beliefs take precedence over everything else.
BTW -- I used to consider myself a Republican. I don't know what to call myself now.
if you've heard the rhetoric coming out of Iran (from their president no less) directed towards Israel, you'll understand why he's behind our military's occupation of that region.
Lemme see, the Iranian President has claimed that the Holocaust never happened. It was entirely made up by the media to gain support the Jews. He also states that Israel should be wiped off the map and moved to Europe or Alaska. In short, the guy is nuts.
A commentator wrote an article in the Chicago Sun Times this morning that pretty well covered how it's going to go down:
1. The US has used up its "attack bad country" card for the time being, so they won't do anything.
2. Israel will take the threat seriously and bomb the hell out of Iran's caches of missiles and nuclear weapons facilities.
3. The UN will make more pointless resolutions condemning Israel.
Sound about right?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Does that somehow make the actions less wrong?
A guy has information that is new, shocking, and reveals a blatant violation of the constitution, and just because he's also an author of an up-coming book he shouldn't come forward with it?
I think the implication is not that he fabricated the information, but rather that if honesty and integrity in the executive branch was his single motivating factor, he would have yelled it immediately, not sat on it while he wrote a book. Quite obviously, he felt the information was important enough to have some monetary value, but not important enough to require immediate attention from the people.
No matter what your opinion of Bush, the author comes out looking slimy. In my opinion, deservedly so.
Yeah, Martin Luther King wasn't doing a thing illegal. He didn't have anything to worry about from the FBI's surveillance, because the government has always acted in a proper and lawful manner.
The principle here is that the United States constitution should be inviolable. It's a pretty good framework. It guarantees a few nice things like freedom of speech and religion, a fair trial by jury with the burden of proof on the prosecution if you are accused of a crime, and the prohibition of cruel or excessive punishment if you are convicted of that crime.
Freedom from warrantless searches got put in there too. It did not get put there for no reason-surveillance of what you are doing, whether it's a search of your home or interception of your communications, is a violation of your basic rights. Sometimes it is called for due to probable cause that you have committed a crime. In that case, you go to a judge, and that judge reviews your evidence. If (s)he decides that you are correct and the search is called for, a warrant will be issued. That's the purpose of judicial review-an impartial judge must approve acts via due process of law that would normally be a direct violation of your rights, such as requiring you to pay a fine, imprisoning you, or conducting searches and surveillance.
I do not -just- oppose these measures on the grounds that I don't want to be watched even -when- I have nothing to hide, although that's most certainly part of it. I oppose it on the grounds that those Constitutional guarantees are the very reason that America is referred to as the "land of the free"-and every time one gets subverted, that becomes less true. That is a reason. If you don't care, that is your right. But don't expect those of us who -do- happen to like our freedom to stand by and watch while it's chipped away piece by piece.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
I'm as much a Bush hater as anyone else.. and I loved Clinton, but his administration supported things like ECHELON, DMCA, and the Clipper Chip. That doesn't mean that all Democrats are anti-privacy, of course.. and the triangulation wing of the Democratic party is going out of style.
When Bush can say the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper"
Did he really say that? Has it been reported by anyone other than Doug Thompson? Who is Doug Thompson, anyway? I'd actually like to pass this around to some people, but I need to know that it's for real.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Hint: It's in the Bill of Rights. The problem is that often the government will block anyone from taking it to court if they haven't actually been affected. The people who are affected probably don't know it or if they do, are in prison without access to the courts.
Sorry, no. Previous Presidents ordered the NSA not to spy on Americans because they took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constititution" Presumably that includes obeying it, since the Office of the Presidency only has power by virtue of it. The 4th Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
A person's communications are his effects, even if they are not papers. Paper was the only external data recording and transmission medium available to the Founders. They would surely have included electronic communications today.
said the holocaust never happened
:P
Not quite. He called it a myth, claiming that not nearly as many people were killed as is commonly claimed (which is a common position to take in Iran). Not that Ahmadinejad isn't a rather disturbing character. It shows how poorly the "Domino Theory" for the middle east went, when someone like Khatami was replaced by someone like Ahmadinejad. The guy is frightening even to many Iranian hardliners because he's a follower of Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, a supporter of the Hojjatieh movement with close ties to the Haqqani theological school. The movement is based on the goal of bringing about the return of the 12th Imam by creating chaos on Earth, and was used by the Shah to try to wipe out the Bahai faith. I sincerely hope that he's not a member of the Hojjatieh movement. At least Ahmadinejad has stressed the importance of development and justice to bring about the Imam's return.
What a disturbing inverse-domino-theory this turned out to be
Man on crucifix terrorizes church, demands they eat his flesh and blood. Details at 11.
Wait, isn't that the crux of Sadam Hussein's legal defense? "I have not violated the laws of my country. I am the president. Whatever I say IS the law!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Yet another impeachment count if the Democrats can find the spine to win the 2006 elections.
If you're not concerned about the president creating a US KGB, then you're a fascist and you don't deserve to be an American. You're an American hater because you hate the Constitution of the United States.
Flying flags does not represent patriotism. Nor does sporting yellow magnetic stickers made in China. Belief and upholding the CONSTITUTION makes you an American.
GW Bush is NOT an American. He is a demonic usurpur. He'd be far more comfortable living in Saudia Arabia.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Hello people... the article mentions that the CIA and the Executive branch informed the Legislative branch this was happening. They were informed that phone number and email addresses collected during an arrest could be used to find ties to others. According to the article the information had to be acted on quickly. It worked. Others were ferreted out and arrested.
Anyone ever hear of FISA? Since the calls and email were international communications, it is within the purview of the CIA to intercept them.
The article also mentions that the government still has to get warrants for domestic taps.
If you don't like it... get FISA repealed!
I have to admire, though, the way Bush has managed to run roughshod over just about every conservative ideal there is while still managing to keep a sizable percentage of the country fiercely loyal to him.
I could go on, but as I said, why bother? Anyone who doesn't already see the darkness is never going to be swayed by words.
And before you say it: No, I'm not particularly left-leaning. I think conservatism has a lot of good things to offer. If only it were actually being practiced.
As someone who has studies WWII in a great deal of depth, I would agree that the Holocaust *as we generally think of it* is a product of late war and post war propaganda. Furthermore, this has generally been exacerbated by research by Jewish scholars who are primarily interested in the experiences of their relatives. Not that this scholarship is incorrect-- it is just incomplete and people assume that the limited point of view (i.e. the Jewish experience in the camps) is the entire view. The real horrors of the work and death camps take shape only when the full scope of what happened there become known and parallels are drawn to the kinder, gentler genocides that were being quietly perpetrated in this country, in Canada, in the UK and elsewhere.
I am not one to speculate on figures-- what do the numbers matter anyway? What difference does it make if it were five hunderd thousand, six million, or fifteen million? The horrors of the death camps were systematic and independant of the number of those that lost their lives there.
The concentration camps were an integral part of the Nazi political machine. They were used to threaten those they wanted to join the party. They were used to get rid of dissidents. They were used to suppress any possible alternative political voice and so every nationalist organization unafilliated with the Nazis was generally banned by Himmler (examples included the Guido von List Gesselshaft, the Armanenshaft, and many others, some of which have survived to this day). Such bans were in effect regardless of whether the group opposed the Nazis or not. Indeed, I believe that the strategy was to use ethnic minorities (most notably Jews and Gypsies) as examples which could be used to threaten or intimidate the other citizens of the Reich into fearful loyalty to the Nazi party. In many ways, this is more horrifying than if it were simply a matter of racial hatred.
We should not forget so easily that genocidal programs were in effect in the US, and that some of the same ethnic groups that were targetted in the Third Reich were targetted here (most notably the Roma/Gypsies), mostly through forced sterilization. Such practices were common in the US, Canada, and the UK. Sure we didn't kill these people in mass numbers, but this doesn't make these actions any less evil. Similarly, a large number of techniques were employed to destroy the Native Americans as a cohesive social unit. These incldued some forced sterilizations, but also systematic attacks on native languages and culture. The institutional focus on the destruction of native languages and culture have remained in effect in this country through at least the early Clinton years (I do not know if anything has changed since 1994-- I believe it has but I have seen no concrete evidence that this is true).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Whether or not the Iraqis gained anything from the US prosecuting the consequence for the Iraqi government's violation of the Cease Fire is not the point of our involvement in the country. We are there...again...because the Iraqi government led by Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the Cease Fire. A Cease Fire that was brought about by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq-a pure invasion of conquest. They, the Iraqi government was told that "dire consequences" would result from violating the Cease Fire. Every government involved in the liberation of Kuwait signed off on it. Since everyone knows that the UN is a toothless old corruption dog, everyone knew that the US or another nation with the will to act would be required to put teeth into the agreement. Teeth that bite, as Saddam Hussein found out. That said. I truly hope that the Iraqi people can directly benefit from the current involvement of the US. And perhaps they will. However, it is not right of you to blame the deaths of the people killed by the insurrection (terrorists) on the US. The US would have pulled out long ago had the terrorists not fired up their machine of violence. I think it would have been a mistake to pull out, but that is what they would have done.