Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NY Times: Spying on citizens by Clinton Administration just fine

Discussion in 'Legal' started by progunner1957, Jan 14, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. progunner1957

    progunner1957 member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    A wolf living in Sheeple land
    The alleged Bush/NSA phone monitoring is an outrage against humanity, but the Clinton administration's spying on American citizens, which happened tens of thousands of times more often, was just fine with the New York Times.

    Once again, the Demosocialist controlled media shows its double standard: Clinton can do no wrong, Bush can do no right.:barf: :barf: :barf:





    NY Times: 'Illegal' Spying OK Under Clinton

    Last month, when the New York Times revealed to the world that the Bush administration had a top secret National Security Agency program that monitored communications between al Qaeda terrorists and their U.S.-based agents, it strongly condemned the operation as a dangerous and possibly illegal invasion of privacy.

    However, the Old Gray Lady wasn't nearly as upset over a much broader surveillance program under the Clinton administration, which routinely monitored millions of phone calls between U.S. citizens without a court ordered warrant.

    In fact, the paper called the blanket invasion of privacy a "necessity" - even though it was carried out without the justification provided by the 9/11 attacks.

    The American Thinker web site has unearthed Times quotes from 1999, when the paper was reacting to reports on the NSA's Echelon project under Bill Clinton, which randomly trolled U.S. telecommunications looking for trouble.

    "Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists," the Times explained helpfully.

    The same report quoted an NSA official assuring Times readers "that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.”

    These days, however, the Old Gray Lady doesn't like to talk about Echelon. In the dozens of stories on the Bush NSA operation since reporter James Risen "broke" the story on December 16, the Times has mentioned the older NSA program only once.

    In a December 22 report by Timesman Scott Shane, the paper dismissed "reports on an agency program called Echelon [asserting] that the agency and its counterparts in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia somehow intercepted all world communications," calling such claims "exaggerated."
     
  2. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,085
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    Yeah, but there was no agreed political plan to hurt the Clinton Administration as there is to undermine Chimpy McHaliburton.:D
     
  3. AZRickD

    AZRickD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,684
    Oy. Echelon and Carnivore.

    I'm reliving my early days of web activism.

    Rick
     
  4. Hockeydude

    Hockeydude Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    So just because the Democrats said it then it makes what Bush is doing right? Only simple minded people will be content with the "Democrates did it too" excuse. It just shows that both parties are hypocrites.
     
  5. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Well besides the fact that a "Johhny did it first" is not a viable defense for children, let alone the President of the United States, from a technical legal perspective, the United States did not listen to American citizens. Foreign intelligence agencies monitored U.S. communications and shared the information with NSA; much as NSA monitored foreign citizens and shared the communications with those countries. Echelon is a case of violating the spirit of the law while honoring the letter of the law.

    In contrast, the recent monitoring of American citizens by the Bush Administration without a FISA warrant is at best a legally grey area. Bush undoubtedly violated FISA. The only question is whether he retained some Constitutional authority to allow him to declare any American communicating internationally a potential "foreign agent" and subject to his powers to gather foreign intelligence OR whether the authorization to use military force also authorized him to spy on Americans.
     
  6. Boogyman

    Boogyman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    84
    Location:
    Southern Missouri
    Clinton went through the proper channels and got FISA approval. Bush did NOT. This is ILLEGAL. That's what the outrage is about.

    Most of the big media corporations are owned by rich REPUBLICANS. This "liberal-controlled media" drivel is nothing but tired old rhetoric.

    It's amazing to me what lengths people will go to ommitting facts, presenting statements out of context, and outright lying, all in a feeble attempt to defend Bush's despicable antics and try to blame everything on Clinton.

    Give it up!
     
  7. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,366
    echelon != phone monitoring
     
  8. WillBrayJr

    WillBrayJr Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    371
    Location:
    Northern Indiana for now
    I have nothing to hide. What are they going to do?, haul my @$$ in because I talk to my mom.
     
  9. Flyboy

    Flyboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,888
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    When Hillary is President, and you talk to your mom about the neat gun you just bought...

    Besides, you miss the fundamental issue: the government is supposed to have probable cause. If they do, they can get a warrant; if not, it's none of their damned business.
     
  10. tellner

    tellner member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Oregon
    Except that you'll notice a couple things. When Clinton did it he went to FISA and got warrants. When he didn't have time to he went within 72 hours as mandated by law and got them. In other words, he obeyed the law. Bush ignored the law because he didn't feel like obeying it and because the (conservative, Bush-appointed rubber-stamp) judges had the temerity to deny him six out of the thousands of warrants he demanded.

    So the difference, for the fact-impaired, is that Clinton obeyed the law. Bush broke it. And he even broke it before the 9/11 rationalization http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml.

    Besides, it's the tactic of the guilty criminal to say "It doesn't matter if I broke the law. Some other guy broke the law to, so I'm fine." It doesn't wash as a defense, especially from someone who claims to be the paragon of morality.

    You can be sure that the Republican Lie Machine in its incarnation as the Arkansas Project would have jumped on Clinton if they thought they could pin anything even remotely bad on him.

    Sorry, this time the Republicans have to ride the pipe. They're just generally not man enough to own up to it.
     
  11. dasmi

    dasmi Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,781
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    +1.
    Well said, as usual.

     
  12. Malone LaVeigh

    Malone LaVeigh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,136
    Location:
    Washed out of Four-dollar Bayou. Now I'm... somewh
    It was wrong, and everyone I knew was against it, when Clinton was the boogeyman behind Carnivore, etc. It's wrong now that Bush is doing it. The difference is that Clinton wasn't arrogant enough to consider himself above the law.

    We ought to at least be able to hang the SOB we caught. (Metaphorically, of course, I'm not advocating capital punishment...)
     
  13. PCGS65

    PCGS65 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    766
    Too many irrational quotes here, so I'll just say

    OH HOW THE DEMOCRATS WILL BLAME BUSH TO MAKE UP FOR HOW CLINTON SMEARED THEIR NAME THROUGH THE MUD.:rolleyes:
     
  14. longhorngunman

    longhorngunman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Oh no, ole George might hear me tell my buddy about my new Mauser, oh the horror! Good grief, if anything Bush should have been impeached if he didn't tapp the phones of suspected Al Queda while we are at war. The best is all these internet armchair commandos who get riled up about these phone taps and the Patriot Act, animal ID, despite the obvious need and the fact that the majority of this country is in absolute agreement with the gov. on these matters.
     
  15. Justin

    Justin Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    Longhorngunman, way to beat the snot out of that strawman there.
    The controversy isn't whether Bush was wrong to tap phones. The controversy is that he didn't go through FISA to get a warrant to do so.

    Bush.

    violated.

    the.

    Constitution.



    And for the rest of you, since when does the 4th Amendment read

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, unless they've piqued the interest of some beaurocrat, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, except for people who lead exceedingly boring lives."

    Every time I actually see someone voice support for eroding the 4th amendment because "I'm so boring, they'd never bother me" it makes my stomach churn.

    But I guess the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights were just a bunch of terrorist-loving pinko commies.
     
  16. Malone LaVeigh

    Malone LaVeigh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,136
    Location:
    Washed out of Four-dollar Bayou. Now I'm... somewh
    First, say that when it's Hillary.

    Second, a majority, according to polls going back as far as I can remember, support gun control. That make it OK with you? Just because you find yourself with the sheeple on this one doesn't make it right.

    Finally, according to the reports I've seen, polls show the country about evenly divided over the current snooping. Only the bootlicking toads are in "absolute agreement."
     
  17. PCGS65

    PCGS65 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    766
    Justin, our government is unconstitutional end of story. However two wrongs don't make a right if Mr. Bush did break the law.
    Also it's obvious the NYT is operated if not owned by democrats.
     
  18. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,366
    Justin +1
     
  19. Justin

    Justin Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    Yeah, but does that mean that any time some public servant violates the constitution it shouldn't at least be documented and denounced?

    What does this even mean? That it's wrong to prosecute someone for violating the constitution?

    Hi, welcome to 1992. To be completely honest, given the millions of news outlets that now exist, from portal websites to specialized blogs, to RSS feeds, and programs that email news stories directly to you, the whole "The media are a bunch of leftists" thing has worn a little thin. Of course the media are a bunch of leftists. So what? Go bookmark a bunch of blogs that aren't and be done with it.
     
  20. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,847
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    The US-based Echelon facilities didn't monitor US calls; only overseas stuff. The UK-based Echelon facilities, not needing FISA authorization, monitored US calls and then fed the data to the NSA.

    Since the Commander-in-Chief has some amount of authority to spy on enemies and agents thereof, it's possible that Bush's folks' spying was Constitutional. I don't know, one way or the other.

    I'm waiting for the legal eagles to work it all out. So far, it's "He said, she said."

    Art
     
  21. longhorngunman

    longhorngunman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Many constitutional scholars have said there is no violating the constitution over what Bush did. And think God he did it. It is his solemn duty to do all he can to protect the country from those that want to KILL us. Tell you what if these THR's who are so pissed at Bush can get Al Queada and all radical Islam to declare the end of Jihad and peace with the West then I'll wish them Godspeed in impeaching Bush which is what they want. Until then I'm 100% behind the President and the WOT.
     
  22. Molon Labe

    Molon Labe Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,700
    Location:
    SW Ohio
    I'm 100% behind the Constitution.

    This means we're at odds with each other.
     
  23. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Well, you can count me as one of those who is pissed at Bush and I voted for him in 2000 and 2004. Feel free to check my past posts if you doubt me. If I had known he would use the power this way, I would not have done it.

    Even if the taps are found to be legal, they set remarkably bad policy precedent that won't go away when these terrorists do.
     
  24. spartacus2002

    spartacus2002 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,578
    Location:
    St. Pete, FL
    Look guys, just jam the system by starting every phone conversation with "President, Allah, Bomb." That guarantees NSA will hoover up your conversation. If we all do it, their supercomputers will melt down.:evil:
     
  25. Boogyman

    Boogyman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    84
    Location:
    Southern Missouri
    I commend you, sir, for having the cajones to admit you regret your decision, if even for this one issue. While I didn't vote for Bush, I, too, am outraged by his abuse of power. And a lot of other things that he won't be held accountable for unless the Democrats take back the House this November.
    You wanna see him pay? Then you know how to vote next time...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page