Bush renames spying

[fourays2]

While large flocks of articulate individuals debate this tempest in a tea pot, the nation continues to do precisely nothing about the Islamic terrorist savages.

Tapping telephone calls doesn't stop terrorism.

Bush's people should have followed both the letter and spirit of the law, and should not, in any event, have allowed anything of this story to see the light of day. Their internal security is obviously flimsy.
Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iran...

I think a lot of GWB's people are remembering that "I was only obeying orders" was not a valid defense. Also if we're realy serious about the GWoT then why are our borders WIDE OPEN?

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Judging by the Karl Rove swipe in your post it sounds like you would have preferred one of the ever-elusive plans from Senator John Kerry.

That is as utterly ridiculous as saying: "Judging from your swipe against Josef Goebbels it sounds like you would prefer to follow the course of Neville Chamberlain."

Look, framing the argument in nonsensical either-or terms might work with the general public, but it won't get you very far on this list. Most people who post here are far too bright to be sucker punched with cheap ploys like that.

 

[Manedwolf]

The idea that these changes are temporary is ridiculous. We are now in a state of never-ending war on terror. This war can never end, there will always be terrorists of one form or another.

So don't fool yourself into believing these changes are just temporary. They are permanent.

Exactly. Not only do we not have a congressional declaration of war, but we've "declared" war on...an idea. And an idea that's been with the human species since the first tribe of hunter-gatherers snuck over and killed a competing tribe's women and children instead of fighting the other hunters.

This is Orwell's Eternal War. What can we declare victory against? When? Ever?
Nope.

 

[Manedwolf]

I don't think the President's constitutional obligation to defend the country should be checked or balanced.

Well. There you have it. Anyone who wonders, historically, how free societies become dictatorships, what goes through people's minds....

 

[Khornet]

**sigh**

"How many terrorists has the program stopped? Zeeeeero.."

How can you have a debate when the other side doesn't even have the facts? If you're not aware of a t least one case, one which has been mentioned repeatedly during the debate on this affair, it's hard to take the rest of your case seriously.

And if you expect the executive to announce all the cases in which the program has been successful, I got a bridge to sell ya. Hint: the one they failed to blow up because the NSA caught on first.

 

[Camp David]

"How many terrorists has the program stopped? Zeeeeero.."

How do you know that? How can you prove that? Perhaps the program has stopped 1,000 acts of terror domestically, perhaps more, perhaps less? Who knows?

How many home invasions have been prevented because your actions have been observed by potential attacker who decided not to break in becuase of your actions; i.e., firearm ownership? In short, how do you prove good defense?

How do we prove that nuclear weapons won the Cold War and becuase of them, nuclear anhilation was avoided?

The president has said that this program assists in the larger effort to prevent terrorism; seems good enough for me. You can't prove it doesn't work as attempts at domestic terror are not publicized.

 

[Biker]

How do you know that? How can you prove that? Perhaps the program has stopped 1,000 acts of terror domestically, perhaps more, perhaps less? Who knows?

How many home invasions have been prevented because your actions have been observed by potential attacker who decided not to break in becuase of your actions; i.e., firearm ownership? In short, how do you prove good defense?

How do we prove that nuclear weapons won the Cold War and becuase of them, nuclear anhilation was avoided?

The president has said that this program assists in the larger effort to prevent terrorism; seems good enough for me. You can't prove it doesn't work as attempts at domestic terror are not publicized.

Yup. Bush said that we'd be greeted with open arms by the Iraqis too.
He also knew exactly where the wmd were.
He also told Bin Laden that "You can run, but you can't hide!"
For me anyway, his track record is less than awe inspiring. 'Course, maybe I'm just expecting too much.
Biker

 

[Manedwolf]

From Knight-Ridder's Washington Bureau:

"But a poll released last week by Zogby International showed 52 percent of American adults thought Congress should consider impeaching Bush if he wiretapped U.S. citizens without court approval, including 59 percent of independents and 23 percent of Republicans. (The survey had a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.)"

Three words. Rule. Of. Law.

 

[Khornet]

Biker,

can you reference any of those statements? Did Bush SAY we'd be welcomed with open arms? We were, in fact, though not everywhere or by everyone.

Did Bush SAY he knew "exactly where" the WMDs were? I musta missed that one.

"You can run, but you can't hide." So what. Clinton said he was black. Big deal.

 

[Biker]

can you reference any of those statements? Did Bush SAY we'd be welcomed with open arms? We were, in fact, though not everywhere or by everyone.

Did Bush SAY he knew "exactly where" the WMDs were? I musta missed that one.

"You can run, but you can't hide." So what. Clinton said he was black. Big deal.

a) Actually, Rummy made the first statement. I would guess that Bush and Rummy are on the same page.
b) Powell made the statement when presenting evidence to the U.N..
c) What does Clinton have to do with this argument?

Biker

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi Lobotomy Boy-

That was some clever excerpting you did in your post# 52 in response to my original statements in post# 48 earlier. I'm a Republican who has a huge libertarian (with a lower-case "l") streak, so I'm very mindful of 4th Amendment rights and the dangers of an overreaching government. Please respond in full if you're going to respond at all...just so you remain intellectually honest to this forum.

The simple fact-of-the-matter is we're talking about telephone calls that originate from overseas from al Qaeda members or others giving comfort to terrorist groups. That's a far cry from domestic spying, which isn't occuring.

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[Biker]

Hi Lobotomy Boy-

That was some clever excerpting you did in your post# 52 in response to my original statements in post# 48 earlier. I'm a Republican who has a huge libertarian (with a lower-case "l") streak, so I'm very mindful of 4th Amendment rights and the dangers of an overreaching government. Please respond in full if you're going to respond at all...just so you remain intellectually honest to this forum.

The simple fact-of-the-matter is we're talking about telephone calls that originate from overseas from al Qaeda members or others giving comfort to terrorist groups. That's a far cry from domestic spying, which isn't occuring.

~ Blue Jays ~

Just to be fair, although I don't have a link available at the moment, as I recall, some Quakers or Amish involved with a peace movement were also targeted. Additionally, how do we know that what Bush says is true without some kind of oversight? Thanks to the PA, the definition of "Terrorist" is becoming increasingly broad. Can you disagree?
Biker

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Additionally, how do we know that what Bush says is true without some kind of oversight?

What he said. Ultimately all this will come out in the wash. Until then, I prefer to err on the side of the Constitution, especially when we have a chief executive who has publically proclaimed that he would like to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act in order to fight the flu.

 

[R.H. Lee]

OK lemme posit a question then for those of you who are opposed to surveillance. (And probably opposed to 'torture' also; can't have the jihadists stripped down and dogleashed with panties on their heads, it's too 'inhumane' and all). What do you propose as an alternative? Or are you willing to accept random 'homicide bombers' at irregular intervals in U.S. cities? That way you'd still have the Constitution intact. Some of you will be dead but oh well that's the price of 'freedom'.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Just to be fair, although I don't have a link available at the moment, as I recall, some Quakers or Amish involved with a peace movement were also targeted. Additionally, how do we know that what Bush says is true without some kind of oversight? Thanks to the PA, the definition of "Terrorist" is becoming increasingly broad. Can you disagree?
Biker

If you can provide evidence that Bush is spying on random Americans, instead of only those receiving international calls from known terrorists, then I'll agree with you that that specific surveillence should stop immediately.

But until you do, I'll stick to my support of the surveillence. The fact that Bush hasn't revealed the evidence you doesn't in any way suggest that he's wrong when he says these people are terrorists.

Again, I agree with you that the issue of deciding who is and who isn't a terrorist is a tough one. But somebody has to make the call. If you disagree with the decisions the President has made, that's fine. I can understand that. But be respectful of the fact that the rest of the country chose Bush to make these decisions on our behalf.

If you don't like that, then vote for someone else. Or better yet, run for the office yourself. But the simple fact is that someone has to make these decisions. The Constitution names the Executive as the appripriate office to make these decisions, and King Jorge rolleyes: )is the man the country chose to hold that office.

 

[Biker]

OK lemme posit a question then for those of you who are opposed to surveillance. (And probably opposed to 'torture' also; can't have the jihadists stripped down and dogleashed with panties on their heads, it's too 'inhumane' and all). What do you propose as an alternative? Or are you willing to accept random 'homicide bombers' at irregular intervals in U.S. cities? That way you'd still have the Constitution intact. Some of you will be dead but oh well that's the price of 'freedom'.

Panties on the head? Personally, I prefer crotchless so I can still see.
.
Seriously, yeah, I'll accept casualties in order to keep the Constitution intact. Hell, that's why I signed up for the Army at 17 years of age.
Freedom has always demanded the ultimate price at times and it ain't gonna get any cheaper in the near future.
What price on your Freedom?
Biker

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Here's an interesting question to ponder:

During WWII a number of American citizens, of German ancestry, returned to their homeland to fight for the Nazi cause. Should President Roosevelt have been obligated to seek judicial approval before going after the Nazis, simply because some of them happened to be Americans? Should he have been obligated to seek judicial approval before spying on German military activities, given the fact that he knew he had to spy on a few Americans in the process?

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

RHLEE: you are still trying to paint this as an argument between surveillance and no surveillance. It is really an argument about legal versus illegal surveillance. What part of that confuses you?

As for condoning torture, I can't imagine how any civilized human being could condone torture. You describe it as frat-boy pranks involving panties on heads; if that is the case, why did the army convict Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr. of negligent homicide and negligent dereliction of duty for the death of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush. Did the general choke on a pair of panties? The army considered this serious enough to send a U.S. soldier to prison, and you trivialize it like some prank gone awry? If your moral values are this low, I am proud to be in disagreement with you.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Roland, the answer to your interesting question is that these people renounced their U.S. citizenship when they joined a foriegn military.

 

[GTSteve03]

OK lemme posit a question then for those of you who are opposed to surveillance. (And probably opposed to 'torture' also; can't have the jihadists stripped down and dogleashed with panties on their heads, it's too 'inhumane' and all). What do you propose as an alternative? Or are you willing to accept random 'homicide bombers' at irregular intervals in U.S. cities? That way you'd still have the Constitution intact. Some of you will be dead but oh well that's the price of 'freedom'.

More people die every month from automobile accidents in the USA than died in the entire 9/11 attacks.

I'm willing to have the occasional sacrifices given by American citizens in order for our country to remain the way our founding fathers intended.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Seriously, yeah, I'll accept casualties in order to keep the Constitution intact.

You might, but the American people won't. Have you seen the result of a homicide bomber? It's gruesome. Wait until bloody chunks of meat that were American men, women and children show up on the walls and sidewalk outside Bloomingdale's. The outrage will be impossible to contain.

Lobotomy Boy- You take an abusive anomaly that was properly prosecuted within the system and extrapolate it out as though it were SOP. That's the modus operandi for all your tenuous 'arguments'. What's worse, you do this while wrapping yourself in the U.S. Constitution. I find your opinions wholly reprehensible and devoid of any merit whatsoever.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Lobotomy Boy- You take an abusive anomaly that was properly prosecuted within the system and extrapolate it out as though it were SOP. That's the modus operandi for all your tenuous 'arguments'. What's worse, you do this while wrapping yourself in the U.S. Constitution. I find your opinions wholly reprehensible and devoid of any merit whatsoever.

And you publically condone torture. One of us is using a debating technique that you disprove of (highly debatable), and the other minimizes the horrific death of another human being (empirically). Which of us is really the more reprehensible?

My example, anomalous or not, is based on a factual incident. Youre example of putting panties on someone's head, is an example of the modus operandi for all of your tenuous 'arguments': you try to distract us from the very real problems associated with actual examples of torture and worse yet--this administrations condoning of torture, with some irrelavent whimsical event that may or may not have happened.

Your argument here is a bit like a pile of feces telling the toilet paper it smells bad.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Lobotomy Boy- You take an abusive anomaly that was properly prosecuted within the system and extrapolate it out as though it were SOP. That's the modus operandi for all your tenuous 'arguments'. What's worse, you do this while wrapping yourself in the U.S. Constitution. I find your opinions wholly reprehensible and devoid of any merit whatsoever.

And you publically condone torture. One of us is using a debating technique that you disprove of (highly debatable), and the other minimizes the horrific death of another human being (empirically). Which of us is really the more reprehensible?

My example, anomalous or not, is based on a factual incident. Youre example of putting panties on someone's head, is an example of the modus operandi for all of your tenuous 'arguments': you try to distract us from the very real problems associated with actual examples of torture and worse yet--this administrations condoning of torture, with some irrelavent whimsical event that may or may not have happened.

Your argument here is a bit like a pile of feces telling the toilet paper it smells bad.

 

[Biker]

You might, but the American people won't. Have you seen the result of a homicide bomber? It's gruesome. Wait until bloody chunks of meat that were American men, women and children show up on the walls and sidewalk outside Bloomingdale's. The outrage will be impossible to contain.

Lobotomy Boy- You take an abusive anomaly that was properly prosecuted within the system and extrapolate it out as though it were SOP. That's the modus operandi for all your tenuous 'arguments'. What's worse, you do this while wrapping yourself in the U.S. Constitution. I find your opinions wholly reprehensible and devoid of any merit whatsoever.

I've seen the result of bombs before, in one form or another, and it's ugly.
However, it's not ultimately as ugly as the dismantling of our Constitution. Seems as if a bunch of old, dead smart guys circa 1776 agreed with me.
Biker

 

[Camp David]

However, it's not ultimately as ugly as the dismantling of our Constitution.

The inflationary and reactionary rhetoric aside, who is advocating "dismantling of our Constitution"? What's the worst thing that this administration could do that would even approach "dismantling" in your opinion?

Even if what the most far left loon is accusing this administration bears a nugget of truth, it is far and gone a long way from "dismantling the Constitution"! But I understand such wild rhetoric is all you have to go on...