Slashdot Mirror
National Intelligence Director Seeks Expansion of Spy Powers
Erris writes "The Bush administration is seeking even less judicial oversight for their spying efforts both here and abroad. An AP story is discussing proposed changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act proposed by National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell. 'The changes McConnell is seeking mostly affect a cloak-and-dagger category of warrants used to investigate suspected spies, terrorists and other national security threats. The court-approved surveillance could include planting listening devices and hidden cameras, searching luggage and breaking into homes to make copies of computer hard drives.' One of their specific goals is prosecution immunity for communications companies who comply with the program, a sheild for groups that violate privacy laws in turning over information to the NSA. The article notes that 'Critics question whether the changes are needed and worry about what the Bush administration has in store, given a rash of allegations about domestic surveillance and abuse of power.'"
Too many fucking crooks get their way in suits when homeowners protect themselves against the illegal entry/theft. If those pieces of shit are getting their way I can't imagine that the "legalized" pieces of shit would be treated any differently.
I think that if the Bush Administration gets this that the American Public should have the ability to walk into Bush's bedroom at night -- after all, him and his lapdog cronies have perpetrated more spying, illegal activity and terrorism than any single citizen of this country.
Bush himself is 0 for 4 with his excuses for starting an optional war.
At least it's mostly Bush voters suffering in Iraq...not that it makes a dishonorable conflict any more palatable.
Blar.
I abstained, but had I been forced, I would have voted for Bush over Kerry.
.prolong a bad war and ensure that the U.S. has a severely handicapped foreign policy for years to come, which can only cause more violence and destabilization.
Kerry is despicable to me. The type of man that Kerry is (if you can call him that) is one of the few things more despicable to me than someone who runs for president touting a conservative/moderate isolationist policy and then does a complete 180 once in office.
I'm of the mindset that you don't play sides against one another, you don't sit on the fence with your finger in the breeze waiting to see which way the wind blows before you act out of conviction. ESPECIALLY if you're in a position of leadership, which apparently doesn't include Senators anymore.
I think the Iraq war was possibly one of the biggest strategic mistakes ever made, but I believe that Bush made the decision on good conscience while being fed bad information. Now we have to deal with it. Such is life.
I think that once your country is involved in the war, the only option you have is to win it, and win it quickly. All this handwringing and second-guessing and berating the president serves to do one thing. .
I think anyone who seriously thinks protests and political attacks are going to end violence in Iraq one second sooner, and actually benefit the people there, are deluding themselves. Once the country entered the war, our choice was no longer to be in a war or not -- that choice was made and could not be revisited. Our choice was to win decisively and leave the country moderately stable, or leave Iraq in a state of chaos and civil war.
The time to question whether the war was a good idea is after the war is over. Otherwise there will always be those who can say, "Well, if we had support of the press, congress, people, etc., it would have been different."
This is the tragedy of Vietnam that people like Kerry seem to think was some great victory for their "side." They can't let a bad policy fail and be evaluated on its own terms, because their egos are too big not to make a scene.
Nobody seriously wants to prolong a war. When it ends, it ends, protests or no. It can't be cut short either without tremendous loss of life and damage -- most people know this. This is why the Dems in congress now will never vote to cut off funding for it, it's political suicide, because it's stupid.
If Kerry really "supported the troops," he'd keep his damn mouth shut about the war. He'd have likely gotten elected and been able to make a real, positive change if he had. But he doesn't have the concern of the country as his focus, he's so self-centered his selfishness comes over TV broadcasts.
I'd have more respect for someone who actually voted against the war, and to cut off funding for it, instead of the spineless types who publically oppose the war but do nothing real to stop it, which only prolongs the war and encourages the enemy to keep fighting. And hell, I'm one of the "troops".
Kerry is a spineless egotist, not a man. You can at least say Bush has convictions, as wrong as they may be.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
The Achilles heel of conservatism is a pride that blinds them to constructive criticism. The image of Kerry as power-seeking is one painted by the Republicans, and yet the very actions of the Republicans paint themselves as the power mad. Stubbornness, intransigence, and absolutism are mistaken for patriotism, wisdom, and religiousness. Reality based folks call it stupidity.
Pay more attention to actions and outcomes. Empiricism is a better judge of character than hot air.
Lie? Are you somehow claiming that al-Zarqawi wasn't in Iraq in 2002, and that he didn't have extensive ties to al-Qaeda? I sure hope not, because those are documented facts, and that is exactly what Cheney has said all along.