Bush calls for easier wiretap rules

Status
Not open for further replies.

xd9fan

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
1,858
Location
Under tyranny in Midwest
Bush calls for easier wiretap rules
Jul 28 02:17 PM US/Eastern
US President George W. Bush on Saturday called for Congress to revise a US security law in order to ease restrictions on the government's secret communications surveillance of terror suspects.

Amid furor over Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's handling of the government's secret warrantless wiretap program, Bush urged legislators to pass the update of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) proposed in April.

The changes would ease intelligence collection aimed at people plotting attacks on the United States, Bush said in his weekly radio address.

"Today we face sophisticated terrorists who use disposable cell phones and the Internet to communicate with each other, recruit operatives, and plan attacks on our country," he said.

"Technologies like these were not available when FISA was passed nearly 30 years ago, and FISA has not kept up with new technological developments.

"As a result, our nation is hampered in its ability to gain the vital intelligence we need to keep the American people safe."

Bushed urged lawmakers to work in a bipartisan manner to pass the legislation before leaving for August recess, saying: "Our national security depends on it."

Bush made the plea as Gonzales became more mired this week in accusations that the government abused the law to monitor suspect electronic communications to and from the United States without first obtaining warrants from a special secret FISA court.

On Thursday members of Congress called for a perjury investigation of Gonzales for testimony he gave days earlier on the warrantless wiretaps, which were launched when Gonzales was White House Counsel.

The FISA reform proposed by the White House in April would loosen restrictions on tapping into emails, phone calls and other communications inside the country and possibly allow the US to freely tap into international communications routed through the United States.

It will also protect telecommunications companies who cooperate in the effort. Several major companies have been sued for helping with the wiretaps.

But Congress has resisted the reform while demanding more information on the government's electronic spying efforts since 2001, which the White House and Gonzales have insisted were legal, but others say broke the law.

This week Gonzales and FBI director Robert Mueller offered apparently contradictory testimony on a 2004 Justice Department dispute over the program's legality, sparking accusations that Gonzales lied to the legislators about the controversy.

Bush did not address the Gonzales controversy in his address, but on Friday White House spokesman Tony Snow said: "The president supports him and the president supports his performance."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070728181733.y96icq2c&show_article=1
 
"Today we face sophisticated terrorists who use disposable cell phones and the Internet to communicate with each other, recruit operatives, and plan attacks on our country," he said.

"Technologies like these were not available when FISA was passed nearly 30 years ago, and FISA has not kept up with new technological developments.
Here's a novel thought:

Why not, instead of relying on technology as a crutch for our intelligence services, we do it the old-fashioned way of actually using human intelligence sources that infiltrate these groups and provide us with actual useful information.

You know, spying? Seems like it would be lots more effective than trolling the internet and cellphone networks collecting databases of massive size and then using computers to sift it all out. The signal/noise ratio would be a lot smaller, but then again they wouldn't have all that other useful information they just happen to pick up while they're "protecting our freedoms."

:banghead:
 
This is yet more fascism from Bush. He's a dictator wannabe. Screw him and the Cheney he rode in on. As to Gonzalez, let's just say Gonzalez is a little... well I'm already well off that pristine high road.

Let's hope the Democrats don't give it to him out of spite. Although they (for the most part) want the same stuff too.
 
I will take the high road and call Gonzales a pathological liar. This is both true and a lot nicer than other things I could come up with.

But Gonzales is merely a symbol of an executive that feels that it is accountable to no one.
 
If I'm reading it correctly, congress isn't giving into the requests of Bush for easier wiretapping abilities?
 
If I'm reading it correctly, congress isn't giving into the requests of Bush for easier wiretapping abilities?
I hope they don't. It's a slim hope, though: they believe in intrusive government every bit as much as Bush does. If they have an objection, it's only about who gets to control the levers and knobs. Once they're done milking this for some political capital, they'll put it through so President Hillary will have the power she needs to wiretap "terrorist organizations" like, oh, the NRA and the JPFO.

--Len.
 
Ok, the facts. There is a 99% certainty that there will be a Democratic administration in 2008.

Throughout the downturn of the Bush adinistration there are still continuing efforts to increase the "Regal" power of the President. I can't for the life of me see why the present adminstration is so bent on providing its successors with a baseball bat to beat them with. This policy made political sense when it appeared a Republican administration would last forever but now it is suicidal.
 
"Today we face sophisticated terrorists who use disposable cell phones and the Internet to communicate with each other, recruit operatives, and plan attacks on our country," he said.

Yup, real sophisticated. Them terrorists have found out about the interneet!~:rolleyes:

In all seriousness, does Bush really think that he has a right to spy on American Citizen's without obtaining a warrant?

Bushed urged lawmakers to work in a bipartisan manner to pass the legislation before leaving for August recess, saying: "Our national security depends on it."

I guess when you want something bad enough, you can just lie about it, to try and frighten people. It's really no different that what the anti-gunners do with "Assault Weapons."
 
I'm glad thehighroad is siding with the terrorists on this one.

Nice little straw man you slipped in there. How exactly does wishing that Federal authorities obtain a court warrant before they spy on American Citizens, equal "siding with the terrorists?"
 
Cause it's exactly what the terrorists want too.

Hamstring the Federal government so the government cannot stop terrorists from blowing themselves up.
 
I recall when the Dems made such a stink when GWB appointed John Ashecroft as AG.

I liked Ashecroft a whole lot, considered him a sharp & principled guy, and thought his views were the most COTUS-friendly held by a US AG since before FDR (cursed be his name).

Of course, the MSM & Christian-haters went after him hammer & tongs. So, next time they get an affirmative-action/crony pick.
 
Listen, the whole reason they're called TERRORists is because they are there to strike TERROR into their victims. The material damage means little. If we allow the government to look over our shoulder all the time, we will end up as a police state, and, to me at least, there is nothing more TERRIfying than that. So they will have won. Do we really want another Red Scare?
 
Bush seems to be doing a good job of protecting the homeland with his existing tools.

I'm only worried about what would be done with those same tools in the hands of a socialist.

Maybe he can throw in a sunset provision for 2008.
 
Cause it's exactly what the terrorists want too.
Please. If anyone is siding with the terrorists, it's the current administration: they're the ones fulfilling the terrorists' wildest dreams:

* The terrorists want us scared. The administration, from its "threat level or'nge" in every airport, to its "gut feelings," to its, "they envy our freedom and want to exterminate us," is doing its level best to keep us terrified. (They're doing it, of course, because they hope that terrified people == R votes.)

* The terrorists hate our freedom. There's room for debate about what the terrorists really want, but if we assume the Bush administration is dead right, then they're cooperating fully with the terrorists by taking away our freedoms and rights.

* The terrorists want holy war. Again, assuming the absolute truth of that assessment, the administration couldn't have done a better job of promoting holy war if they were all "hadjis" themselves. They toppled a secular nation, set up a religious nation in its place with a constitution based on sharia law, and kicked off a civil war between two religious sects, Shia and Sunni. Whichever side wins, secular Iraq will be replaced with religious Iraq--run by religious strong men, seething with hatred toward the US.

* Terrorists want to bankrupt the US. As they themselves have said, they want to make us spend a million dollars for every dollar they spend. The administration is meeting and exceeding terrorist expectations in that area. If the trillion-dollar war doesn't bankrupt us, it will at least damage our economy way out of proportion to all terrorist acts against the US, throughout our history, put together.

--Len.
 
Cause it's exactly what the terrorists want too.

Hamstring the Federal government so the government cannot stop terrorists from blowing themselves up.
You assume to much....one of which is that the Federal Govt has my and your best interests at heart...which is beyond B as in B S as in S.


lets lose our liberty to protect it.
Kick a$$
great policy
run with that.

All in the name of fear
state your name
 
I honestly wonder, is THR an anomoly? Can other potential R voters just not see? Are they blind? If this wasn't about the future of this nation, it'd almost be funny.

I mean, I'm part of a Ron Paul meetup group, and we grow in number with every meetup, so I know that there are plenty of angry R voters that know all of this, but why the entire party hasn't taken Bush's administration to the woodshed, that I do not know.

These violations of our civil rights benefit a very limited few, so what millions of people are still doing supporting Lil' Bush, I'll never know.
 
God knows, Mordecai, why not everybody thinks exactly as you do. I mean, there's one truth, you know it, and everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% must be an idiot or in denial.

Or maybe, just maybe, the Chicken Littles are coming home to roost. Maybe this time, you're right. But maybe people have tuned out.

I can't remember seeing a single post of yours that didn't take the exact tone of this one. It's not going to win a lot of converts.

THR is an anomaly of sorts, though it's not the only one. We have a population with a fairly large number of people who are addicted to apocalyptic emotionalism. Having lived through a lot of "the world is ending" times already in my life of 41 years, I find it harder and harder to get animated about yet another Doomsday. One day, I might be blindsided, I guess.

Again, you may be right this time. We may indeed be on the eve of destruction. But how many people who don't have the same hobby are still listening?

On the other hand, this may be the Day of the Doomsayers. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/our_national_funk.html

Who knows? Maybe we can drum up enough pessimism and malaise to elect another Carter.
 
Originally posted by Shooter503:This policy made political sense when it appeared a Republican administration would last forever but now it is suicidal.
:uhoh:

Yes because Repbulicans are friends to freedom and Democrats are not. If you have forgotten already, let me remind you that Republicans have shredded the Bill of Rights and Constitutional government more in the last 8 years then has ever been done before. But hey they haven't started on the 2nd Amendment yet so its ok.:rolleyes:
 
THR is an anomaly of sorts, though it's not the only one. We have a population with a fairly large number of people who are addicted to apocalyptic emotionalism.
I don't think it's an anomaly, really: folks who are tuned in to politics tend to be an excitable lot. See FreeRepublic or DemocraticUnderground for lots of hysteria on the left and the right. I can't say as I've ever seen a calm, rational political discussion without any apocalyptic overtones.

--Len.
 
If you have forgotten already, let me remind you that Republicans have shredded the Bill of Rights and Constitutional government more in the last 8 years then has ever been done before.

ROTFLMAO at Tecumseh's ignorance of history.

And no, for those who have the reading comprehension of a duck-billed platypus, that is NOT a defense of the Bush Administration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top