America... Spying on Americans

Bush is just making it so easy to give the new 2006 congress an impeachable offence to pursue. Spying without a warrant is definitely a crime. I love watching this guy's downfall, he's so good at screwing up.

0 Replies

The rightwingers will find 1001 ways that this was legal and justified. Just wait!!

0 Replies

Regarding Finn's point about no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, and SteviePax's assertion that was not due to any action by the government, I must point out that government officials are advising that the "eavesdropping program" complained about by the NYT and this thread, helped uncover and thwart several plots by would-be terrorists, in this country and England. That information is in the NYT article (about paragraph 16).

LINK

0 Replies

Even if it prevented terrorist attacks, it crosses the line. We can't have our government doing whatever they want at the expense of our civil liberties. If the president did this, he acted above the law. No man, president or not is above the law. The court that they would have had to go through has NEVER turned down a warrant for spying. That's what makes this thing so stupid because they could have followed the proper channels and still got what they needed. Bush overstepped his authority and broke the law. He's going down for this one baby. We've got him now!

0 Replies

From the section you quoted, Tico:

Quote:

Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said. But they said most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime, including an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden.

Several unnamed officials make a claim that the program may have helped, in what appeared to be, in part, ....

Blah, Blah, Blah and BULLSH!T!

Oh, and "most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime..."

I wonder how many might be being held in secret (read "disappeared") without charges.

We have no idea.

0 Replies

A great american once said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" I would rather be killed by a terrorist than to give up my liberties.

0 Replies

roverroad wrote:

A great american once said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" I would rather be killed by a terrorist than to give up my liberties.

What civil liberties are you giving up?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

What civil liberties are you giving up?

Well, just the fact that the government could be spying on me without a warrant just because I'm a liberal kind of takes away my rite to privacy. The fact that I could be arrested and thrown in jail without ever speaking to a lawyer for demonstrating takes away my security.

0 Replies

roverroad wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

What civil liberties are you giving up?

Well, just the fact that the government could be spying on me without a warrant just because I'm a liberal kind of takes away my rite to privacy. The fact that I could be arrested and thrown in jail without ever speaking to a lawyer for demonstrating takes away my security.

The fact that it could be spying on you takes away your right to privacy? What right to privacy do you think is taken away by the mere possibility that the government is monitoring your phone calls?

And you could be arrested and thrown in jail without ever speaking to a lawyer before 9/11.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Regarding Finn's point about no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, and SteviePax's assertion that was not due to any action by the government, I must point out that government officials are advising that the "eavesdropping program" complained about by the NYT and this thread, helped uncover and thwart several plots by would-be terrorists, in this country and England. That information is in the NYT article (about paragraph 16).

LINK

The previous administration was able to do that without spending a half a trillion dollars, a war, killing 2000+ Americans, wounding who knows how many, and most of all, passing an unPatriot Act. The unPatriot Act is a tool to spy on Americans, something the rightwingers have been doing for decades. They just wanted to make their illegal activities legal, and they couldn't keep within the guidelines even then!

You're only half way there Tico, and if there is another U.S. attack, I'm sure the American People will not be amused! The truth is that the Bush Admin has been more about robbing the treasury than it is "fighting terrorism". Many reports have come out as to just how little they have done in preparing and defending the U.S. soil itself.

0 Replies

Obviously here again US-American law differs from European.

Here, judicial approval for any electronic surveillance is strictly required.

And since domestic privacy is is a basic law, evidence must be shown to the judge that such a suveiance is necessary.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Here, judicial approval for any electronic surveillance is strictly required.

And since domestic privacy is is a basic law, evidence must be shown to the judge that such a suveiance is necessary.

Well that's the way it's supposed to be here too, the President just doesn't understand that.

0 Replies

Germany has surpassed the US in freedom, democracy and honoring civil liberties...

Whodathunk?

Very Happy

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Germany has surpassed the US in freedom, democracy and honoring civil liberties...

Whodathunk?

Ironically, so has Russia...

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

roverroad wrote:
A great american once said "Give me liberty, or give me death!" I would rather be killed by a terrorist than to give up my liberties.

What civil liberties are you giving up?

If you want to know that, read it. There are also much analysis as to just how it does it. Bush has already issued an apology for his unlawful acts. Of course, the rightwingers won't give a **** about the fact that he broke the law because it didn't involve sex with a plump 19 year old!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

So, which part of the 4th amendment was broken?

The part where the NSA listened to the phone calls of Americans without first obtaining a warrant.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

So, which part of the 4th amendment was broken?

The part where the NSA listened to the phone calls of Americans without first obtaining a warrant.

That's perfectly legal in a rightwing world!

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

So, which part of the 4th amendment was broken?

The part where the NSA listened to the phone calls of Americans without first obtaining a warrant.

It's laughable that you actually have to explain this stuff huh? I can't handle this anymore, I'm going to bed!

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Does the government eavesdropping, without judical warrant, on phone calls and e-mails to foreign sources represent giving up essential liberty?

I don't know, what liberties of ours that are guaranteed by the Constitution do you consider essential and which do you see as non-essential

Quote:

Did the intelligence provided by this eavesdropping produce only a little temporary security?

That all depends on whether you think the threat from terrorism is permanent.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

So, which part of the 4th amendment was broken?

The part where the NSA listened to the phone calls of Americans without first obtaining a warrant.

Do you agree that NSA can properly listen to the phone calls of internationals, including their calls to Americans?

0 Replies

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know