US Intelligence Chiefs Urge Easing Of Spy Rules

The US admninistration is not looking for this law change to enable them to "Better fight the War On Terror". The truth is that the US Administration need the law relaxed because they think that it will then make it easier for them to get a retrospective law change that may further help them to crawl out of a rather deep set of legal and constitutional holes that they currently find themselves in. You see, the Dubya administration has trampled all over the laws of the US and the Constitution itself and they have, as seen in the video, admitted it along the way. The problems they now face are coming from all directions such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation's successful application to sue AT&T for handing over phone records without a warrant. The President has already blocked one investigation into his conduct regarding this issue and now they are looking to srike down all others before they even get started.

Comments

Why is this not surprising?

[pieterh]

It worked so well in Italy, for Berlusconi. If you break the law, just change the law, preferrably retroactively. You can stay out of jail for a long time like this.

Please vote this time

[192939495969798999]

Not voting is the same as a vote for the various (accused) incumbents.

Re:Please vote this time

[novus ordo]

What makes you think voting will make a difference? Like Stalin said: "It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes."

Re:Please vote this time

[Guppy06]

You're forgetting that the House of Representatives is divided into 435 carefully crafted districts where nobody but the incumbent has any hope of getting more than 15% of the vote. Vote, don't vote, the only difference it makes is a slight change in the incumbent's victory margin.

I know you like to Bush bash

[Belisarivs]

But at least include a link to the story the summary is about. What law, which chiefs, where is this being reported?

It wouldn't be so bad **iff**

[MikeRT]

There were still a barrier between the NSA, CIA and law enforcement. Back before Bush, even if they spied on you, you couldn't be prosecuted with the information the intelligence agencies got on you using their "special spook methods." Now, people have a good reason to worry.

All things considered, nothing that Bush is doing will end Islamic terrorism. The harsh truth is that yes, there are millions of good people who are Muslims and do no support terrorism. There are, unfortunately, far more Muslims who are at least sympathetic to terrorism than there are religionists of any other persuasion. These are not people that we want in our borders--period! But... we can't know a person's heart, so what do we do? I say we end immigration from Islamic countries. Allow them to come over on a guarded visa that is routinely checked up on to work for a few years, but then they have to go home.

Look, the only way to fight Islamic terrorism without falling prey to more of it at home, and not violating the rights of our citizens, non-Muslim and Muslim alike, is to keep new Islamic immigrants out of our country. There is no fundamental human right to live in a country of your choice. This is not an ethnic thing as I'd have just as much problem allowing a white Australian who admitted to being a Muslim come here as I would a Saudi. The only two countries I could see getting any sort of exception might be Albania and Turkey.

All religions have violent pasts because for a long period of time, the world was a truly brutal and uncivilized place. It's gotten reasonably better in most parts. We can overlook the Islamic jihads of old out of respect for the crimes of the state churchs and all other official religious bodies. A complete religious Tabula Rasa for the 21st century. Unfortunately for one religion, it's slate will get smeared in the blood of non-believers in oh... *looks at his watch* probably within the next hour thanks to a certain state-supported religion's believers.

Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff**

[Anonymous Coward]

keep new Islamic immigrants out of our country ... I say we end immigration from Islamic countries

I say that works both ways ... how about all Americans stay in theirs?

Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff**

[PixelPirate]

All things considered, nothing that Bush is doing will end Islamic terrorism. The harsh truth is that yes, there are millions of good people who are Muslims and do no support terrorism. There are, unfortunately, far more Muslims who are at least sympathetic to terrorism than there are religionists of any other persuasion. These are not people that we want in our borders--period!

I'm calling a big ole Bullshit on this one. While there are some Muslims who are sympathetic to the movement, and there are some (and this number is far fewer) that are actively involved, most Muslims are like most Christians, are like most Jews, are like most Pagans, are like most Buddhists, are like most Hindus... they couldn't care less about Terrorism except how it might affect their lives. They are no more terrorists than John or Jane Doe -- they are people! Not the bloody enemy!

Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff**

[kassemi]

This is not an ethnic thing as I'd have just as much problem allowing a white Australian who admitted to being a Muslim come here as I would a Saudi.

No, maybe not an ethnic thing, but certainly a religious thing. The moment you've banned a religious group from immigrating to this country you've just announced and made clear your objections to that religion. Islam is not the problem, it's the way the world politic has been handling the issues. How you got modded insightful with that bullshit is beyond me, unless even the slashdot crowd is now caving in to political propaganda...

Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff**

[portmapper]

All things considered, nothing that Bush is doing will end Islamic terrorism.

If USA stops bombing civilians, respect human rights and does not commit war crimes, I'm sure far fewer will be inclined to act out of desparation as terrorists.

The harsh truth is that yes, there are millions of good people who are Muslims and do no support terrorism.

Most Muslims, like most Christians, does not support terrorism. Bombing civilians from the air is, of course, not terrorism [/sarcasm].

Look, the only way to fight Islamic terrorism without falling prey to more of it at home, and not violating the rights of our citizens, non-Muslim and Muslim alike, is to keep new Islamic immigrants out of our country.

Respect human rights, don't invade other countries, stop toppling democratic governments and install/support dictatorships, and don't exploit poor people. See? I'm sure many more people on the planet will much less hostile to USA if the above was followed.

This is not an ethnic thing as I'd have just as much problem allowing a white Australian who admitted to being a Muslim come here as I would a Saudi.

Agreed, not an ething thing, just a racist one.

All religions have violent pasts because for a long period of time, the world was a truly brutal and uncivilized place.

The world is still a truly brutal and uncivilized place. Just look at airial bombings done in Lebanon and Iraq.

Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff**

[baldass_newbie]

If USA stops bombing civilians, respect human rights and does not commit war crimes, I'm sure far fewer will be inclined to act out of desparation as terrorists.

Where was this happening before September 11th? Before the Kobar Towers bombing? Before the Cole? Before the Kenya attack? WTC '93?

If we look at the biggest Muslim countries: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Somalia, Pakistan and Indonesia, I would say less than half are sponsors of terrorism.
However, the only real active terrorism going on globablly now is from Islam. Not the IRA or the Basque rebels.

FWIW, in Iraq we're trying the same thing we tried in Germany and Japan, two very hostile countries who had proven incapable of peaceful coexistence in the modern world. We brought economic and political self determination. We're not installling dictators. Far from it. In fact, the US has never installed dictators, although we have supported regimes that were dictatorial, mainly because they were anti-U.S.S.R..

Once that threat was eliminated, guys who played both sides against the middle like Saddam Hussein and Moammer Gaddafy were S.O.L.. Now we're expanding trade with Libya and trying to get Iraq some prosperity and freedom and security. Admittedly the last bit is not easy considering the Islamic fundamentalists desire for Sharia and self destruction.

It turns out historically the one way to end fanaticism is to kill enough fanatics. Again, cf Germany or Japan circa 1940's.

Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff**

[Shaper_pmp]

There were still a barrier between the NSA, CIA and law enforcement. Back before Bush, even if they spied on you, you couldn't be prosecuted with the information the intelligence agencies got on you using their "special spook methods." Now, people have a good reason to worry.

All things considered, nothing that Bush is doing will end Islamic terrorism. The harsh truth is that yes, there are millions of good people who are Muslims and do no support terrorism.

Wow. I've never agreed so strongly with someone's first five sentences and disagreed so violently with the entire rest of their post before.

There are, unfortunately, far more Muslims who are at least sympathetic to terrorism than there are religionists of any other persuasion.

Please provide the merest hint of evidence that this is anything other than baseless, pulling-facts-out-of-my-arse racist bullshit, or be modded into oblivion.

Remember in your answer to differentiate between the truly violent religions and those which are merely prevalent in extremely deprived, politically-unstable parts of the world.

Also remember to excuse the (nominally-Christian) West's identical behaviour during periods of similar social strife and deprivation, and the fact that the entire Middle East region is so unstable pretty much entirely because of the machinations of european countries and the US over the course of the last hundred years or so.

These are not people that we want in our borders--period! But... we can't know a person's heart, so what do we do? I say we end immigration from Islamic countries. Allow them to come over on a guarded visa that is routinely checked up on to work for a few years, but then they have to go home.

Great idea - lose all the terrorist sympathisers... along with most of the middle- and far-eastern grad students who are the only ones counteracting the US's massive brain-drain to countries with less restrictive (and less religiously-inspired) research laws.

Also remember turnabout is fair play, and remove all your expatriots from the region. Specifically all the ones with guns, bombs and missiles who are doing such a bang-up job of convincing the terrorist sympathisers to invade your hallowed shores.

Look, the only way to fight Islamic terrorism without falling prey to more of it at home, and not violating the rights of our citizens, non-Muslim and Muslim alike, is to keep new Islamic immigrants out of our country.

Or, y'know, stay out of theirs. Again, specifically the tooled-up tourists in uniforms.

There is no fundamental human right to live in a country of your choice.

Nope. Nor is there a fundamental human right allowing you to invade other countries who pose no threat to you, extort them to change their laws to ones you'd like purely for your own benefit, topple democratically-elected leaders, invade countries on false premises and then let the guy who did it off scot-free, etc, etc, etc.

Your point?

This is not an ethnic thing as I'd have just as much problem allowing a white Australian who admitted to being a Muslim come here as I would a Saudi. The only two countries I could see getting any sort of exception might be Albania and Turkey.

Well, personally the only "Christians" I hear about in the mass-media are the fundamentalist fuckwits intent on ousting evolution from schools, banning medical research and calling for the assassination of democratically-elected South American leaders. Can we ban all the Christians too while we're at it?

All religions have violent pasts because for a long period of time, the world was a truly brutal and uncivilized place.

Was? Was? Dude, where are you living? Under a rock?

I kno wthe US is famous

Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff**

[Wizard Drongo]

Blatantly flamebait, but hell, I'll bite. The USA does and always will support any government that'll bend over and kiss american arse. Doesn't matter if said government is a totally pacifist democratic republic, or a tyranny consisting of a resurrected Adolf Hitler with Stalin as Minister for Information, Pol Pot as Minister for 'Justice' and Alexander The Great as Minister of War. The USA will happily support such regimes and give them cheap weapons, aid etc as long as said regime gives America whatever it wants, typically oil, military bases, freedom to roam through the regime's airspace or use it as a staging area, or the regime's backing against a larger enemy, like the USSR, or China or Iran, for example. Only way that'll ever change is if the US people get some balls and overthrow corrupt governments, stop electing them in the first place, or a decent US government gets into power and actually changes a few rules to stop it happening again. Don't hold your breath waiting. In fact, what am I saying? Please, feel free to hold your breath. One less of you to put against the wall when the revolution comes.

Re:It wouldn't be so bad **iff**

[rahrens]

I cannot agree more with the "war within Islam" statement.

As I have been trying to explain to people for several years, the terrorists, while claiming to be fundamentalist Muslim, are really using the religion to shield their actual intent from exposure. The vast majority of Muslim people around the world live in countries that do not believe in universal literacy, so many of them depend upon the word of clerics to tell them what their holy book, the Koran, says. Since Islam has no central authority, like the Vatican in Catholicism, there is nobody that can definitively settle a dispute about what a passage means. This makes it easy for their friendly clerics to sway large numbers of Muslims to their support with relative ease.

The Koran, like the Bible, has entire sections that have been nullified by the passage of time, and the affect of different teachings and traditions over the centuries. Like the Bible has passages that condone slavery, the Koran has passages that require Muslims to attack and kill infidels. We don't condone slavery, and have finessed those passages so that we don't take them seriously anymore. So have most of the clerics in Islam glossed over and don't teach the anti-infidel passages, either.

But these newly-minted fundamentalists have taken these passages, which are still there in black and white, and are making them relavent again, using friendly clerics. Remember, within certain bounds, one cleric's fatwa is as good as another's, certainly to the unwashed, illiterate masses of Muslim people.

Combine that with the terrorists' use of US policies that are msotly unpopular in the Arab world anyway, and they have a ready-made platform for general mayhem.

The majority of moderate Muslim clerics around the world that do not condone the terrorists' actions have not yet recognized the terrorists threat to their way of life, and those that do are slow to react. It'll be a long, hard road, and it's a fight that will happen whether the US is involved or not.

I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy...

[GundamFan]

But come on... The big scary Democrats are going to call it the "Dubay" adminstration and giggle while the world goes to crap... That's it, That's your plan? It didn't work in 2004 (or ever). what makes you think it will work now? I have a better idea... lets all stop bickering and elect people with IQs above 70 (all officals in both parties not just the president) and that repreent our real concerns (not ones made up every two to four years as needed) I would like a world (non Mad Max if I had a choice) to leave to my children. All polititians suck, contribute nothing, have too much power and they only care how there actions afect themselves in the extreme short term.

Re:I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy.

[Red Flayer]

But come on... The big scary Democrats are going to not motivated by personal interest oncall it the "Dubay" adminstration and giggle while the world goes to crap... That's it, That's your plan? It didn't work in 2004 (or ever). what makes you think it will work now?

It worked for the Republicans in the 50s, it worked for them in the 80s and 90s. The Commie boogeyman, the Liberal boogeyman...

The modern Republican party is based on opposing Liberalism (though it opposes it with another kind of liberalism). It is a reactionary party, despite recent efforts to call it something else -- and the Democratic party has better do its damndest to not fall into the same reactionary mold. The entire basis of conservatism is fighting against liberalism.

As to electing intelligent people, that's not the solution. There are plenty of very intelligent people in office who do terrible things, or allow terrible things to happen. What's needed are people who are motivated by the public interest, and not by games, self-promotion, and party-promotion. They need to be sufficiently versed in history, economics, and political theory. The ability to treat subjects rationally is a must.

When every candidate meets those criteria, we can have meaningful elections based upon the views held by the candidates. Then again, this will NEVER happen, so we have to play the hand we're dealt... and frankly, I can't see a clear way of cleaning house while the corporate world is married to the political one.

The U.S. government has been helping oil companies

[Futurepower(R)]

Most people don't understand the background. The U.S. government has been helping oil companies in secret since before 1950, and that has led to an expectation by rich oil investors that the U.S. government will lower the cost of doing business by getting the U.S. taxpayer to pay for security arrangements. The U.S. government secretly, or semi-secretly, breaks the law, kills people, including Arabs and Muslims, and and destroys the property of anyone who stands in the way of oil and other profits. Here is a short summary of the kinds of actions that have caused the U.S. government to be corrupted: History surrounding the U.S. wars with Iraq: Four short stories.

The U.S. government is in dire circumstances. Money is being taken from the people and given to the rich in enormous quantities. See the old article, U.S. Federal Deficit by Political Party. See how much things have gotten worse since then: National Debt. Oil and weapons investors profit: Cost of Iraq War.

See a short review of books and movies about conflict of interest: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

It's far worse than these short references say.

Not flamebait

[voice_of_all_reason]

While I don't agree with everything Parent says, it's a logical and well-reasoned arguement. Certainly not flamebait.

Poor moderation of the parent comment.

[Futurepower(R)]

Moderators: "I disagree" is not the same as "Flamebait".

Re:I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy.

[rahrens]

You may consider it a tired accusation, but until people actually see ideas from strong Democratic leaders that don't revolve around hating Bush, you will keep hearing it!

I style myself as largely independant - although I have voted Republican since Reagan - mainly since I haven't seen a Democratic leader with a real, strongly articulated vision that didn't involve turning the country so sharply left it scared me as much as the Republican right does now.

As I mentioned in my post above, what this country needs is a strong moderate leader that is capable of bringing this country together, based upon a strongly articulated vision that doesn't call half the country stupid names. Nobody has a problem with strengthening this country's values - but the one thing that has escaped the Republican right is that we don't all want those values to be labeled with a religious name.

Personally, I don't really care which party this leader comes from, as long as he focuses on bringing us together, by emphasizing commonly held values that don't have labels attached to them. There are enough values we can call American that we all can agree on; the more devisive ones can be put on the back burner until we can settle the major international problems we have today.

If the majority of Americans in the middle had a leader that truly attracted moderate voters, he would walk away with the next election, regardless of his party. I think most of us are getting very tired of the far right and the far left both!

Take a moment...

[PopeRatzo]

give yourself a few seconds to absorb this: George Bush used his executive powers to block an investigation into his own actions. He wants laws changed so that crimes he's committed will no longer be considered crimes. He signs laws that congress passes, adding a statement saying that he doesn't really have to obey that law. We have a president who walks around with his fingers crossed behind his back. Let's all remember that Republicans have governed this country completely since 2000. Are you and your family better of now than you were in 1999? Do you feel safer?

Re:Until you are unelected or retire

[freedom_india]

But the US is not a dictatorship, it is a pluralist federation, and the possibility exists that in the revolution of the political cycle the time will come when a US government will indict a member of the present Administration for war crimes. Of course it could never happen.

As you have rightly mentioned, that WILL NEVER happen.

The previous, present and future administrations are all equally corrupt for it to happen.

No WAY will Bush or Dick or Rumsfeld be strip searched.

Reagan did far worse, and lied, etc., but he was creamated with honors.

Re:Seems like a moveon.org rant

[rfc1394]

While you try to paint Bush and his administration as a group of thugs that simply disregard the constitution whenever it suits their needs

There's no "painting" here. This is exactly what they have done.

you're quite mistaken. Knowing Bush's character and his record, he hasn't done anything that his advisers and lawyers would deem "unconstitutional".

Oh, so that's why the courts have been regularly handing them their ass on a platter and telling them what they are doing is in violation. I see.

If Bush has a question about the legality of something, he's always asked Gonzales and his legal team to find an appropriate, legal way of accomplishing his goals.

And then go right ahead and do what they wanted to do anyway, just have their lawyers claim what they are doing is constitutional or the laws don't apply. For most of those whose rights are violated, they don't have the resources to sue and thus the administration gets away with it. For now, anyway.