Washington Post: Bush authorized domestic spying...

[PatrickG]

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10489609/)

This doesn't look good to me.

It won't change the minds of any die hards on either side, I imagine.

But it's just not kosher, IMO.

Some excerpts:


President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.

The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night.


The bottom line?

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies at George Washington University, said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity.

The law governing clandestine surveillance in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prohibits conducting electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. A government agent can try to avoid prosecution if he can show he was "engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction," according to the law.

"This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration," said Martin, who has been sharply critical of the administration's surveillance and detention policies. "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans."

[Winslow]

Niot that I want to defend Bush or anything, I just find it interesting what is reported and what's not. From Forbes (probaboly a conservative spin):

The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2005/12/16/ap2397026.html

If there were illegalities, its sounds like the entire government was involved - congress and judicial. Which is even more disturbing.

Seems like we're (the United States - that's all of us) still trying to figure out how to detect terrorists and still protect our civil liberties. Not an easy tightrope to walk.

[Shellhead]

Apparently the ideals that America represents are so fragile that our government will abandon all of them in fear of a terrorist attack. We should come up with a new name to reflect this change in national identity... maybe the Nervous States of America.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Seems like we're (the United States - that's all of us) still trying to figure out how to detect terrorists and still protect our civil liberties. Not an easy tightrope to walk.

Especially when we have an administration which is contemptuous of civil liberties.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Apparently the ideals that America represents are so fragile that our government will abandon all of them in fear of a terrorist attack. We should come up with a new name to reflect this change in national identity... maybe the Nervous States of America.
Or we should abandon or severely restrict most of the Patriot Act provisions, and kick the people who do this sort of shit - and those who support them - out of office.

[Shellhead]

Or we should abandon or severely restrict most of the Patriot Act provisions, and kick the people who do this sort of shit - and those who support them - out of office.

I thought they just renewed the Patriot Act this week. Or was that some other 9/11-spawned piece of legislation?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I thought they just renewed the Patriot Act this week. Or was that some other 9/11-spawned piece of legislation?

The House has. The Senate is set to vote on it today, and it faces potential fillibuster from both Dems and those rare Republicans who still care about civil liberties unless changes are made to add more protection to the citizens and limits on the government's ability to use the provisions. Here's hoping guts wins out over partisanship nonsense and totalitarianism.

[Noah Johnson]

When did the phrase "secret court" stop being one that made people reach for a weapon?

[JeffreyWKramer]

When did the phrase "secret court" stop being one that made people reach for a weapon?

When people forgot the lessons from the 60s and 70s about how giving government more power to engage in covert surveillance against citizens always leads to such power being abused and misapplied.

[PatrickG]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/16/senate.patriot.ap/index.html

And the extension is down for right now.

Five Republicans (including Sununu) sided against it. (Although Frist did so primarily to be a dick.)

I have to say... What are the odds of Russ Feingold running of the Democratic ticket next time?

I plead ignorance of the man in general but he seems very intelligent and articulate and sensible whenever he's on TV.

[Sam]

Between this and more than half of the Republicans in the House voting in favor of torture, I really don't see how anyone with even the faintest idea what's going on could still support these people.

[Brian M.]

That article is pretty interesting. I'd like to know the whole story behind and who the people were they spied on.

As for the comment above that stated that half the people voted for Torture. That is not what voting against that bill was about. That bill would have banned techniques that are legal now but would be illegal after the bill. All this talk about how the Government imposes on all civil liberties I wanna ask how have your rights been violated? You personally. Have you in the last 4 years had any of your rights violated. I'm not asking for generalizations I want to know you personally.

[JeffreyWKramer]

That article is pretty interesting. I'd like to know the whole story behind and who the people were they spied on.

Why does it matter, really? If there was good reason for it to happen, it should have happened via appropriate channels.

The laws restricting government surveillance of US citizens, and restricting intelligence activities on US soil, are there specifically because time and again, such measures have been misused.

All this talk about how the Government imposes on all civil liberties I wanna ask how have your rights been violated? You personally. Have you in the last 4 years had any of your rights violated. I'm not asking for generalizations I want to know you personally.

So, if I haven't been personally raped or had a family member murdered, I should wait until it happens before I speak up about such crimes?

Sorry, but yours is a ridiculous argument. Civil liberties are not something you only get concerned about when it affects you. If you ignore it when it happens to someone else, sooner or later it might be you, and then it will be too late.

[Charles RB]

All this talk about how the Government imposes on all civil liberties I wanna ask how have your rights been violated? You personally. Have you in the last 4 years had any of your rights violated. I'm not asking for generalizations I want to know you personally.

So, what- it doesn't matter if your government has the power to violate your civil liberties as long as they aren't doing it to you personally? Well that's a lovely viewpoint to take on the whole thing, that is.

[mortari]

Isn't the Gov having the right to Violate my civil liberties a violation of my civil liberties. And shouldn't that be enough?

[The Mirrorball Man]

I said it before, I'm saying it again: Watergate wouldn't even make the front page these days.

[Sam]

As for the comment above that stated that half the people voted for Torture. That is not what voting against that bill was about. That bill would have banned techniques that are legal now but would be illegal after the bill.

This is patently untrue. It's BS made up by the Republican leadership, who seem genuinely intent on using torture. The bill bans "cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees," and everything it bans was already considered to be against US law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, before the Bush administration began covertly undermining those rules.

To say that some of these torture methods are "legal now" isn't very meaningful -- go back five years, and they certainly weren't.

All this talk about how the Government imposes on all civil liberties I wanna ask how have your rights been violated? You personally. Have you in the last 4 years had any of your rights violated. I'm not asking for generalizations I want to know you personally.

Actually, given my reading habits in both book form and on the internet -- it's been acknowledged that the government monitors those things -- it is extremely likely that I have been, to some extent or another, spied on by the government. It came out a couple weeks back that the FBI have secretly gathered information on literally tens of thousands of Americans since the Patriot Act was passed, so the odds aren't all that bad. Of course, there's no way to check.

There was also an incident this past summer where a stranger took a picture of me and my friends from across the street. Then, when we noticed, immediately turned around and began studiously inspecting the storefront on the sidewalk next to her -- which we found fairly interesting, since it was a store that had been abandoned for years and the storefront was empty. Of course, maybe that was nothing. There's no way to check.

(Ok, granted, I may have brought it on myself. Me and my friends may have prank called the Echelon system once or twice. Which in retrospect was maybe not the wisest course of action, but trust me when I say it was hilarious at the time.)

[cactusmaac]

President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.


This really isn't very surprising.

Conventional infiltration of groups like Al Qaeda by US agents is likely to be very difficult - if not impossible - to pull off, so intelligence is going to have to rely heavily on increasingly sophisticated electronic surveillance.

[JeffreyWKramer]

This really isn't very surprising.

Conventional infiltration of groups like Al Qaeda by US agents is likely to be very difficult - if not impossible - to pull off, so intelligence is going to have to rely heavily on increasingly sophisticated electronic surveillance.

Sure. And there are legal routes by which such things can be done.

What's not surprising at all, given his proven disregard for civil liberties, is that Bush would bypass the legal way to do things.

[Mike Smash!]

But much of this surveillance is on peace groups and anti-war activists -- who have never been proven to have any connection to terrorist groups. This sort of thing has been done for decades (COINTEL PRO anyone?) and there have been proven cases of Homeland Security people "inflitrating" anti-war groups and spying on them. What worries me is that we could pass the spying level and go back to the tried and true, "incite violence from the inside to bust them or discredit them" bullshit.

Democracy Now! just did a show on this topic (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/155223) and files releases through the Freedom of Information Act with a list saying that yes, the Administration has been spying on peace groups.

[Johnny_Storm]

I think the government is starting to get a little too paranoid, when a person or group get's too scared anything can happpen. Having a secret court that hand's out warrants for domestic survalience is pushing the envolpe far enough, but bypassing the warrant's, that's pretty drastic. Any buearocrat or politician with an agenda can abuse that kind of power, and government likely won't be able to intervine until the damage is done. I never thought Bush or congress, they are both responsible for this, had gone this far. I never voted for him or any Republican, but If I hadn't seen this on MSNBC I would have thought it leftist anti-Bush propaganda.

On another note other countries should examine what is happening to the U.S. and help us a bit more in breaking up Al Queda. They should recignize that a paranoid super power is potentially deadlier than any terrorist organization. They saw what happened when the U.S. went after countries that were suspected of promoting communisim, (edit) some leaders went down through covert or out right military means, some who didn't even belive in communisim. Trust, that nobody's safe from a paranoid U.S.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Democracy Now! just did a show on this topic (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/155223) and files releases through the Freedom of Information Act with a list saying that yes, the Administration has been spying on peace groups.

Did you see the Daily Show piece re: spying on Quakers? I'll see if I can find the link.

EDIT: My bad. It was Olbermann on Countdown. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10467922/

[Iangould]

I'm not asking for generalizations I want to know you personally.

"When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not
a gypsy. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I
wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I
am not a Catholic. And when they came for me, there was no one left to
speak." -On the Wall at the Holocaust Museum in Washington

[Mike Smash!]

"When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not
a gypsy. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I
wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I
am not a Catholic. And when they came for me, there was no one left to
speak." -On the Wall at the Holocaust Museum in WashingtonThat's not the exact quote, it's:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


-- Pastor Martin Niemöller

[Bloopinator]

"When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not
a gypsy. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I
wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I
am not a Catholic. And when they came for me, there was no one left to
speak." -On the Wall at the Holocaust Museum in Washington
What was the person?

[Dennis K]

http://bkmarcus.com/blog/images/fascism/BushStiffArm.jpg
Goose-stepping practice begins promptly at 9:00 a.m.

[Iangould]

What was the person?

As Mike points out it Pastor Martin Neimoller - a Lutheran clergyman who was sent to a concentration camp during World War II for criticising the Nazis.

Mike: I went googling because I couldn't remember how to spell Neimoller and that was the first version I found.

Edited to add: assuming the original statement was in German, any version in English can only be an approximation.

[Mike Smith]

Did you see the Daily Show piece re: spying on Quakers? I'll see if I can find the link.

EDIT: My bad. It was Olbermann on Countdown. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10467922/

onegoodmove.org Speaking of Daily Show, this site usually streams clips, which is refreshing as it provides a daily mockery of this administrations shananigans and a good progressive/liberal site. What can I say, they have some very valid points. :)

On topic, Brandeis elucidates my beliefs quite well...

Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face."

--Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead

[Mabels Folly]

What I found interesting as reported by Olbermann tonight on Countdown, is that the NYTimes has been sitting on this story for over a year which means that people high up in Shrub's administration knew of the article and leaned on the Times to hold off on publishing it. And when I say high up, I'm talking on the level of Rove/Cheney.

[Mike Smith]

If I see this thing cross-referenced on higher-tier sources, I will be beyond words...

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”


http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

[Shem the Penman]

In fairness to Bush (which he does not deserve), Capitol Hill Blue is about two steps above the Weekly World News when it comes to reliability. Yeah, I can totally believe it. But like you said, I'm not buying it until there's confirmation from a better source.

[xgeek52]

*sigh* i lived through cointel pro and i had friends whose lives were destroyed by it...didn't like it then, don't like it now...

yes we need a degree of protection...but i've had problems with the patriot act and i have a problem with this...if this is true --even on the face of it...i know how stories get twisted, being a retired journalist...

[Corrina]

The NY Times has a statement on their website on why they held off for a year before publishing this.

The most important element of this, however, is that the editors at the NY Times surely kept good records of their conversations with administration officials about why this info, that the NSA was participating in domestic spying, shouldn't be published.

Which means that the administration has already admitted the truth of the NY Times story and the NY Times has a lot of nice records documenting this, including who in the administration they spoke to.

I'm sure those administration officials said they wanted to speak 'off the record' but the handwriting is on the wall for anyone to see.

Not only is this story true but the attempt to bury it came from the President.

[Sam]

What I found interesting as reported by Olbermann tonight on Countdown, is that the NYTimes has been sitting on this story for over a year which means that people high up in Shrub's administration knew of the article and leaned on the Times to hold off on publishing it. And when I say high up, I'm talking on the level of Rove/Cheney.

Even more horrifying, high level members of the government have the ability to force the New York Times to sit on a story like this for a year.

You remember when news agencies weren't just stenographers for the government?

[Noah Johnson]

All this talk about how the Government imposes on all civil liberties I wanna ask how have your rights been violated? You personally. Have you in the last 4 years had any of your rights violated. I'm not asking for generalizations I want to know you personally.
There's a sarcastic, bitter joke one sees on bumper stickers and T-shirts, "Oh well, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyhow."

What's a bitter joke to some people is the actual argument being put forth by other people. What an odd place to wind up.

We've been told for years that if we don't use our rights, we're going to lose them, and now that we've lost them, we actually have people saying it's okay because we weren't using them.

I wonder what percentage of those still supporting this administration even know what a right is.

[Wesley Dodds]

Yep, no need for Capitol Hill Blue when what the New York Times reported and CNN independently confirmed was so damning.

The real angle here, for me, is the effect this is having on the Patriot Act.

Notice those 4 Republicans who broke away from their party in letting the filibuster go on? 2 years ago, that would not have been possible -- but now, Tom DeLay faces jail and George Bush's numbers give him no coat tails -- the Republican majority has cracked, and hooray for that. We saw it over the budget -- now we see it over the freedom issues that are so damn important but somehow beneath the pampered class that runs the government and the mass media.

The constitution -- good for times of peace and times of war.

It says so right there.

[SilverSpider]

All this talk about how the Government imposes on all civil liberties I wanna ask how have your rights been violated? You personally. Have you in the last 4 years had any of your rights violated. I'm not asking for generalizations I want to know you personally.

With the power and closed door everything the government has going on now there is absolutely no way of telling if your rights have been violated, what did you think they (the powers that be) are just going to come to you and say 'oh by the way we have been spying on you from across the street and listening in on all your phone conversations and monitoring every key stroke you make on your computer, just thought you would like to know.

Signed,
Uncle Sam. '

The only way to find that out is if you get charged with a crime, and at that point it seems like any more people are thinking 'better him than me', so your screwed any way you go.


I'm just glad I'm old enough now to say 'screw it, kill them all and let the Gods' sort it out.'

[Pinball]

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Okay, i've made up my mind. Dubya is the new Powdered Toast Man.
http://www.jrj-socrates.com/Cartoon%20Pics/Misc/Ren%20and%20Stimpy/Powdered_Toast_Man_300.gif

[phoenixrising]

Did anyone hear Bush's speech today? I can't believe he actually confirmed everything in the NY Times story. And...of course, he made the same argument every conservative wonk has been making the past two days:

We can't possibly trust judges and law enforcement to make the decisions that they are trained and told by the Constitution to make. And the President is all-knowing, all-powerful and has a right to do whatever he damn well pleases, because his sheep will let him.

[BlairH]

every conservative wonk has been making the past two days:
What's a "wonk"?

I assume it's "generic negative term for Conservative people", but I guess it could be slang for "academic".

We can but hope!

[Iangould]

What's a "wonk"?

I assume it's "generic negative term for Conservative people", but I guess it could be slang for "academic".

We can but hope!

"Wonk" or "policy wonk" was a term popularised during the Clinton years for peopel obsessed with public policy - Clinton and Gore described themselves as "policy wonks".

To put it in British vernacular their political trainspotters, anoraks if you will.

[BlairH]

"Wonk" or "policy wonk" was a term popularised during the Clinton years for peopel obsessed with public policy - Clinton and Gore described themselves as "policy wonks".

To put it in British vernacular their political trainspotters, anoraks if you will.

Ah right thanks. Never heard that one before. Wonk. Sounds like a keeper (adds to vernacular)

[Justin Davis]

What's a "wonk"?

I assume it's "generic negative term for Conservative people", but I guess it could be slang for "academic".

We can but hope!

Well, you have the definition now, but if it was a "generic negative term for Conservative people," then why would she describe a wonk as being a conservative? By the way, conservative doesn't get capitalized. Yes, it matters.

[Dan Apodaca]

Hey, now. Haven't you guys been paying attention?

The damned New York Times is the one who's really at fault, here! They're putting Americans in danger by letting them know that their government has been spying on them illegally! Now the terrorists now how we work! Goddamned journalists keep screwing it up for everybody!





It's hard to keep laughing with all the rage I feel inside.

[BlairH]

Well, you have the definition now, but if it was a "generic negative term for Conservative people," then why would she describe a wonk as being a conservative?
I don't know, I sort of thought it might be like "you clever, intelligent person" or "you dumb stupid person"

By the way, conservative doesn't get capitalized. Yes, it matters.

Sorry, I'm just used to it. In this country it gets capitalised all the time, because it's the "Conservative Party" (whereas in America, "conservative" is a mere description.)

[Sabrinaset]

Does "Liberal"?

BTW, anyone else find it odd that the the writer of the story is James Risen, who has a book coming out soon about this very topic? The New York Times in this story says they held off for a year on not printing the story, but I kinda think they've been holding out so they can do promos on his book, and their writer can appear on 60 minutes and do all the usual book-signing stuff.

[Mabels Folly]

Even more horrifying, high level members of the government have the ability to force the New York Times to sit on a story like this for a year.

You remember when news agencies weren't just stenographers for the government?


Don't be an ass.

Whoops, too late.

The administration didn't force the NYTimes to sit on this for a year.

There is no way they could do so, except by claiming that by publishing the story the Times would be compromising national security or Shrub could possibly claim executive privilege, but that latter one is on quite shaky grounds.

And this isn't at all unusual. The NYTimes held off on publishing the Pentagon Papers until they could confirm that they were in fact legitimate.

The exact same reasoning applies in this case.

[Mabels Folly]

Does "Liberal"?

BTW, anyone else find it odd that the the writer of the story is James Risen, who has a book coming out soon about this very topic? The New York Times in this story says they held off for a year on not printing the story, but I kinda think they've been holding out so they can do promos on his book, and their writer can appear on 60 minutes and do all the usual book-signing stuff.

Please. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Like that's any different from the various bullshit tie-ins via fast food restaurants and movie releases. I don't see or hear anyone bitching about those.

[Sabrinaset]

Like that's any different from the various bullshit tie-ins via fast food restaurants and movie releases.

The NYT: The Burger King of the Old Media :)

[BlairH]

Does "Liberal"?

We have a "Liberal Democrat" Party. But they're generally crap, hardly get any votes and are -as a whole- an insignificant part of the UK political landscape.

The main voices in Westminster are:

The ruling Labour Party: Traditionally left wing nanny state people. Now turned centre-right nanny state people. Traditionally known as "the working man's party".

The opposition Conservative Party: These guys are now the good guys in my book. Maybe they were slightly evil back in the '70s and '80s, but the current platform appears to be more right wing conservative with a strong libertarian streak. Think Dick Cheney. We've recently elected a charismatic, young party leader. That should help us out quite a bit.

The Liberal Democrats: These guys are very much like the liberal parties we see in countries like Germany, and other parts of the European mainland. They do get quite a few votes (I was being somewhat harsh before), but their votes don't exist in sufficient concentration (spread throught the constituencies) to push through and win some seats. Currently they hold a position to the left of Labour

[bert]

Don't be an ass.

Whoops, too late.



looks like you're a fairly new poster. . . please read Brian's "rules for political threads" at the top of the Comm board.

would hate to see you banned before we really get to know you , Mables Folly.


bert

[bert]

The administration didn't force the NYTimes to sit on this for a year.

There is no way they could do so, except by claiming that by publishing the story the Times would be compromising national security or Shrub could possibly claim executive privilege, but that latter one is on quite shaky grounds.



Well, since the paper has gone on record claiming that the admisitration did EXACTLY that (claiming that it was compromising National Security) . . .

I belive that would count as "pressuring" the paper to sit on the story. No, they didn't "force" them to hold the story. . but they certainly did pressure them not to publish it.

the paper is saying they investigated what threats to National Security, and then decided to publish . . .and that the "investigation" took approx. a year.

[PatrickG]

Who's in favor of little to no market restrictions, unrestricted civil liberties and generally keeping the government out of people's lives in both economic and moral matters?

Who's closest to that?

I have to say that from what I've seen, Ireland looks like the best nation on the British isles. People generally mind their own business. The government seems pretty neutral in most international matters. There's some welfare/charity/assistance but people hate to take it and prefer private charity.

Or maybe people have sold me a bill of goods about Ireland...

[Mike Smith]

I can't believe Bush just outright admitted to spying today. On top of that he bluntly stated he will keep doing it.

WASHINGTON — President Bush said Saturday he has no intention of stopping his personal authorizations of a post-Sept. 11 secret eavesdropping program in the U.S., lashing out at those involved in revealing it while defending it as crucial to preventing future attacks.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179026,00.html

[west3man]

I can't believe Bush just outright admitted to spying today. On top of that he bluntly stated he will keep doing it.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179026,00.html
I'm wondering why he admitted it - especially after saying such an admission would threaten national security.

Catch that? He wasn't just saying the spying was BECAUSE of a threat to national security. He said admitting to it or denying it would pose a threat.

The next day, he did just that.


Honestly, I'm less surprised that he authorized these things than some appear to be. He's shown that he'll do what he wants to do and doesn't want to be questioned about it. That seems to be a popular mantra amongst many of those with authority, unfortunately.

[Sabrinaset]

I'm wondering why he admitted it - especially after saying such an admission would threaten national security.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he wants everyone to know that the gov't is spying on perceived threats because W wants everyone who might actually BE a threat to wonder if they're being watched.


Then again, if I were the Prez, I'd handle it differently, just fling my hair back, say "Is Jayson Blair working for the Times again?", smile, and move on. :)

[Fabian]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he wants everyone to know that the gov't is spying on perceived threats because W wants everyone who might actually BE a threat to wonder if they're being watched.
You want the people who you want to spy on know you're spying on them? Wouldn't that be counter-productive?

[Mike Smith]

Yeah, Bush was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, now he's acting like it belongs there. I loved Senator Feingold response, it was "absurd" that Bush said he relied on his inherent power as president to authorize the wiretaps.

"If that's true, he doesn't need the Patriot Act because he can just make it up as he goes along. I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Feingold told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

[Samurai]

Does "Liberal"?

BTW, anyone else find it odd that the the writer of the story is James Risen, who has a book coming out soon about this very topic? The New York Times in this story says they held off for a year on not printing the story, but I kinda think they've been holding out so they can do promos on his book, and their writer can appear on 60 minutes and do all the usual book-signing stuff.
Plus they can time it to coincidentally come out the day after a rousingly successful vote took place in Iraq, something the left did their best to downplay and shift the topic away from. After an entire year of holding the story, I wonder why they chose that specific day to release it, hmmmmm?

[Fabian]

Plus they can time it to coincidentally come out the day after a rousingly successful vote took place in Iraq, something the left did their best to downplay and shift the topic away from. After an entire year of holding the story, I wonder why they chose that specific day to release it, hmmmmm?
What downplay? All I kept hearing on the news was how Iraq voted and how voter turnout (especially for Sunni voters) achieved or exceeded expectations. That and how some cute little piggy was running around a baseball field.

I'm sure the newspapers will wait for a slow news day to break a story

"Don't use that story Joe, we just had a big news event yesterday and don't want to overshadow it. Use some filler, here, Bendis pissed off some fanboys again"

[west3man]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he wants everyone to know that the gov't is spying on perceived threats because W wants everyone who might actually BE a threat to wonder if they're being watched. Careful. That's a dry, brittle limb.

He said "the bad guys" having that information would threaten national security. The implication is that he doesn't want them to know they're being spied upon.


But really, if he wanted them to know because this give him some advantage, wouldn't he have told them/us himself... three years, ago, when he first authorized this type of domestic spying? Then, and the 30 or so times, since then, that he renewed that authorization?

[Mabels Folly]

Who's in favor of little to no market restrictions, unrestricted civil liberties and generally keeping the government out of people's lives in both economic and moral matters?

Who's closest to that?

I have to say that from what I've seen, Ireland looks like the best nation on the British isles. People generally mind their own business. The government seems pretty neutral in most international matters. There's some welfare/charity/assistance but people hate to take it and prefer private charity.

Or maybe people have sold me a bill of goods about Ireland...

Convienient of you not to mention that little fact about abortion being completely outlawed/ a taboo subject in Ireland.

Not to mention all of those terrorists in the IRA running around scot free blowing up pubs and such.

[Puma]

Not to mention all of those terrorists in the IRA running around scot free blowing up pubs and such.

really? haven't heard of mass pub explosions for quite some time

[Mabels Folly]

If I see this thing cross-referenced on higher-tier sources, I will be beyond words...




http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml


Heh, this isn't anything new. Shrub has long been described as the stereotypical "spoiled brat' of the Bush family, who throws screaming bitchfests if he doesn't get what he wants. That's why he surrounded himself with yes men and sycophants.

[Sabrinaset]

Heh, this isn't anything new. Shrub has long been described as the stereotypical "spoiled brat' of the Bush family, who throws screaming bitchfests if he doesn't get what he wants. That's why he surrounded himself with yes men and sycophants.

Links and quotes from reputable sources, please?

[Mabels Folly]

Plus they can time it to coincidentally come out the day after a rousingly successful vote took place in Iraq, something the left did their best to downplay and shift the topic away from. After an entire year of holding the story, I wonder why they chose that specific day to release it, hmmmmm?

Please. :rolleyes:

This implies that the Times devoted all of their news coverage to the spy story and none to the Iraqi election which is utterly untrue.

And quit acting like it's some huge mysterious conspiracy. The White House routinely does the exact same thing, except that they, the White House tend to dump stories on Friday afternoons 'cause they know, or hope that people will give less of a shit about the news on the weekend.

[Sabrinaset]

Careful. That's a dry, brittle limb.

I'm lucky I don't weigh much then :)

[Sabrinaset]

Please. :rolleyes:

This implies that the Times devoted all of their news coverage to the spy story and none to the Iraqi election which is utterly untrue.

And quit acting like it's some huge mysterious conspiracy. The White House routinely does the exact same thing, except that they, the White House tend to dump stories on Friday afternoons 'cause they know, or hope that people will give less of a shit about the news on the weekend.

That's been happenning since the Reagan Administration, and probably before then (as stated in The Power Game, by Hedrick Smith). That is nothin' new, Mabels.

Don't read the NYT, because , uhm...I live on the West Coast and all, but I think they probably devoted a lot more coverage to something that their writer is gonna have a book on than something like an election in Iraq that makes W look good. Maybe I'll go to the Library Monday and see how much space the NYT devoted to each subject. Might be interesting.

[Corrina]

Putting aside the horrific civil liberties problem here--which the Russ Feingold quote summed up nicely---has no one noticed that lack of wiretaps were NOT the problem in preventing 9/11?

Intelligence services had *all* the information needed to be on alert for planes to be hijacked and crashed into buildings. They even knew some of these hijackers were here illegally.

The problem was coordinating the information. This part of the Patriot Act I agree with--intelligence services should coordinate info and stop protecting turf.

The solution is not to have a President authorize illegal wiretaps in the hope that something important is stumbled on. The solution is to be far more efficient with the information the intelligence discovers.

But I'm not surprised that Mr. I Went to War on Bad Information and Mr. Brownie You're Doing a Helluva Job thought violating essential civil liberties was a better solution that something like competence.

[spoon_jenkins]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he wants everyone to know that the gov't is spying on perceived threats because W wants everyone who might actually BE a threat to wonder if they're being watched.
But there are specific laws in existence for how the government can monitor private communications, and apparently the President violated those. Alarmists will try to make it seem that unless we let Bush do whatever the heck he wants we're setting ourselves up to be attacked. That's not true.

There's a procedure for obtaining warrants, and I heard there is also emergency power to monitor communications for a limited time before obtaining a warrant. Our democratic process have determined that this is the appropriate balance of power and safeguards. If Bush believes that's wrong, he has to work to change the law instead of subverting it.

What happened to the conservative love for rule of law? A leader doesn't have a blank check just because some of people think he's a swell guy. So for instance, the Constitution's provision against suspending the writ of habeas corpus (except in certain circumstances) is meant to be relaxed if we like the President. It's the product of a determination that it shouldn't be within the power of the government no matter who runs it.


Then again, if I were the Prez, I'd handle it differently, just fling my hair back, say "Is Jayson Blair working for the Times again?", smile, and move on. :)
It would be pretty scary if we let the most powerful person on earth off the hook for exceeding his powers because some guy reporter did stuff like ripping off passages from others and making up a fake description of what it looked like outside of Jessica Lynch's home.

[Paul McEnery]

Convienient of you not to mention that little fact about abortion being completely outlawed/ a taboo subject in Ireland.

Not to mention all of those terrorists in the IRA running around scot free blowing up pubs and such.
The IRA are Scots?

No wonder we could never catch them.

[Paul McEnery]

Links and quotes from reputable sources, please?
Nah. Editorial comments aside, that's what everyone says about the White House.

[Sabrinaset]

What happened to the conservative love for rule of law? A leader doesn't have a blank check just because some of people think he's a swell guy. So for instance, the Constitution's provision against suspending the writ of habeas corpus (except in certain circumstances) is meant to be relaxed if we like the President. It's the product of a determination that it shouldn't be within the power of the government no matter who runs it.

I feel I have to remind you that, as was noted previously, Senator Rockefeller knew about it. That means a lot of members of Congress did, and that officials said the administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program. What about that would be considered secret, if W was meeting with other congressional leaders, the FISA court, and the judge there. Isn't it odd that the NYT is focusing on W and appears to be glossing over all the others who knew and must have approved?

It would be pretty scary if we let the most powerful person on earth off the hook for exceeding his powers because some guy reporter did stuff like ripping off passages from others and making up a fake description of what it looked like outside of Jessica Lynch's home.

You did see the smiley face at the end of that sentence, right? That was how I would handle it, which is but one reason I'm going to be a surgeon and not a politician! :p It's not like other Presidents have done similar things. Reagan was known for being the Teflon President because of it, and I mean, geez, Clinton wagging his finger and saying "Ah did not have sex with that woman" was enough for his cabinet to believe him (for all that was worth).

[Sabrinaset]

Nah. Editorial comments aside, that's what everyone says about the White House.

Not buying it. Everyone calls him a chimp, retarded, stupid, and/or a liar, but I haven't heard everyone...or indeed, anyone...accuse W of that yet. I want to know where he got that information about W from, and I want it from some place other than an editorial rant from someone who hates W.

The IRA are Scots?

No wonder we could never catch them.

BLAIR!!!!!! is THAT where all my guns went??? :)

[Harry Angel]

That's been happenning since the Reagan Administration, and probably before then (as stated in The Power Game, by Hedrick Smith). That is nothin' new, Mabels.

Don't read the NYT, because , uhm...I live on the West Coast and all, but I think they probably devoted a lot more coverage to something that their writer is gonna have a book on than something like an election in Iraq that makes W look good. Maybe I'll go to the Library Monday and see how much space the NYT devoted to each subject. Might be interesting.


"probably"????

So you base your judgements about things involving news and politics by making guesses?

[Harry Angel]

I feel I have to remind you that, as was noted previously, Senator Rockefeller knew about it. That means a lot of members of Congress did, and that officials said the administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program.


Actually as the lead Democrat on the Intelligence Commitee, Rockefeller was one of the few Democrats in Congress to hear a word about this, and on top of that, although Rockefeller was against the action he was unable under US law to reveal this information without commting a felony.

Just above you asked for links and evidence to back up a anti-Bush statement from another poster. About some actual evidence and links backing up the assertion that this internal spying was common knowlodge among the Congress?

[Dan Apodaca]

Not buying it. Everyone calls him a chimp, retarded, stupid, and/or a liar, but I haven't heard everyone...or indeed, anyone...accuse W of that yet. I want to know where he got that information about W from, and I want it from some place other than an editorial rant from someone who hates W.

Wait, let me get this straight. First you ask for sources to back up a statement of how she's heard that Bush behaves. Now you're saying you want the "proof" to come from someone who's not speaking from their personal viewpoint AND who likes the guy?

You expect a factual account of Bush's spoiled behavior from a supporter?

Or is this some attempt to spring a trap on her, like "See, you're making it up! You're discredited forever!"


Look, people don't need to cite sources and make bibliographies when they're saying what they've heard about someone. It's like when your friend says, "I heard they have free ice cream at Ben and Jerry's tonight!" You check it out, and either get some free ice cream or not. You don't make a big deal about whether or not your friend is making it up or not. Who gives a shit? This isn't about foreign policy or economics. This is about ice cream. This is about Bush's personality.

It's a statement of opinion, passed through multiple mouths.


And, by the way, my dad works with a woman who was part of John McCain's last campaign. She said that the word among political workers is that Bush has a short temper and often flies off the handle at employees. I don't remember the woman's name. But I don't really have to. This anecdote needs no legitimizing.

[Calybos]

So can we finally impeach this bastard yet? Has he broken enough laws, with enough blatancy, for someone to finally grow a spine and file formal charges against him?

[Dan Apodaca]

So can we finally impeach this bastard yet? Has he broken enough laws, with enough blatancy, for someone to finally grow a spine and file formal charges against him?

The real question is, does anyone really think that President Dick Cheney would be any better?

[Harry Angel]

One other bit of amazing chutzpah from all of this is the fact that Bush is kicking and screaming about this information being leaked and demanding that the leaker be found, but who has at the same time very publicly defended the character of known leakers such as Scooter Libby and Karl Rove.

I guess that the adminstrations views on leaks and leakers is very flexable.

[Mabels Folly]

"probably"????

So you base your judgements about things involving news and politics by making guesses?

Why the hell not?

They'd just be following the lead of Shrub's administration, and we can all see how fabulously that's played out over the past 5 years.

[Harry Angel]

Why the hell not?

They'd just be following the lead of Shrub's administration, and we can all see how fabulously that's played out over the past 5 years.



Actually, the administraiton just guessing would explain alot.

[Sabrinaset]

"probably"????

So you base your judgements about things involving news and politics by making guesses?

Which "Probably" are you referring to?

If it's the one about bad news being delivered on a Friday, I'll say it again: Hedrick Smith in The Power Game said the Reagan Administration deliberately did that, and I added that it probably was done before then. If you think Carter wasn't smart enough to figure that out, then possibly it wasn't done before then. I know it's been done afterwards.

If it's the "probably" about the NYT and how much space it devoted to each news item, I said my speculation was based on the fact that the one news story, as it would make W look good, would not have as much space as the other which is written by a staffer who has a book coming out. I also stated that I did not get the NYT, and it might be interesting to go to the library to see for sure if I was correct. Honestly, I don't see how what I wrote could be misconstrued unless someone is TRYING to misconstrue it.

Wait, let me get this straight. First you ask for sources to back up a statement of how she's heard that Bush behaves. Now you're saying you want the "proof" to come from someone who's not speaking from their personal viewpoint AND who likes the guy?You expect a factual account of Bush's spoiled behavior from a supporter?

I did NOT say "from someone who likes the guy." I said I want something like...oh...

President George W. Bush, tired of the increasingly pointed questions asked of him, picked up a vase behind him at the last press briefing and threw it at Clark Kent from the Daily Planet, screaming between obscenities that he knew who he really was...video and quotes to follow...

as opposed to...

Bush SUX! Today I heard he like totally pulled a gun and was firing it at a staff meeting lolllo!!!111one!!!

Is this really too much to ask for? I mean, I can find a streaming video (or at least an audio of it) of Al Gore not recognizing busts of the founding fathers in a museum, so if I say he couldn't recognize them, I can back it up. I don't think this is an unreasonable request.

[Harry Angel]

Which "Probably" are you referring to?

If it's the one about bad news being delivered on a Friday, I'll say it again: Hedrick Smith in The Power Game said the Reagan Administration deliberately did that, and I added that it probably was done before then. If you think Carter wasn't smart enough to figure that out, then possibly it wasn't done before then. I know it's been done afterwards.

If it's the "probably" about the NYT and how much space it devoted to each news item, I said my speculation was based on the fact that the one news story, as it would make W look good, would not have as much space as the other which is written by a staffer who has a book coming out. I also stated that I did not get the NYT, and it might be interesting to go to the library to see for sure if I was correct. Honestly, I don't see how what I wrote could be misconstrued unless someone is TRYING to misconstrue it.


Actually it's both of those plus the several others that you have thrown out.

I understand that you have a political ideology that you want to defend, but I can't help but wonder why you want to constantly make guesses about things that you don't know about to do it.

There are several people that I politically disagree with here on this site, but even the most extreme ones at least attempt to back up their beliefs with something other then guesses.

I would politely suggest that you attempt the same thing.

[Mabels Folly]

I would politely suggest that you attempt the same thing.

I think the current administration and the Republican party have made it quite clear that politeness has no place in today's politics.

[west3man]

So can we finally impeach this bastard yet? Has he broken enough laws, with enough blatancy, for someone to finally grow a spine and file formal charges against him?
NPR hinted at some political, legal, and executive "magic tricks" that'll make this and damn-near any other "cookie" he gets caught with... perfectly within his power and authority.

[Harry Angel]

I think the current administration and the Republican party have made it quite clear that politeness has no place in today's politics.


No argument about that, but still we should certainly try to rise above the manners and morals of those thugs shouldn't we?

[Sabrinaset]

I understand that you have a political ideology that you want to defend, but I can't help but wonder why you want to constantly make guesses about things that you don't know about to do it.

I think when anyone says "probably", they are hedging their bets that they may not DEFINITELY be right. I flat-out said that I wasn't sure about the amount of space in the NYT, and that it would be worth looking into. I flat-out said that the Reagan Administration had done this is the past. I said probably (not definitely...in which case you would have a better argument) it had been done before that. Somehow, these concepts seem to keep getting missed.

[Harry Angel]

NPR hinted at some political, legal, and executive "magic tricks" that'll make this and damn-near any other "cookie" he gets caught with... perfectly within his power and authority.


The magic trick is that his political party controls the Congress and there is no way that they are ever going to bring articles of impeachment against the man no matter how badly he ignores the law.

[Mike Smith]

Let's be honest here. Bush overstepped his recommended bounds, perhaps going over or at most pushing the extreme limit of the law. At any rate, it is not noble, trustworthy, or prudent to spy on Americans without proper warrant. It represents a great potential catastrophe in term of precedent. If these actions by Bush are actually deemed within bound of presidential authority, perhaps it is time for Congress to hold a session titled "New Limits on Exectuive Powers", and "Fitting Procedural Charges for Executive Deviance".

[Harry Angel]

I think that when I say it's a guess, when I state that it's my opinion, that would sort of obviate the fact that I don't know all the facts (or am too busy to look them all up) and am basing my feelings on whatever I know up to that point, which is usually, but not always, based on past behavior. I flat-out said that I wasn't sure about the amount of space in the NYT, and that it would be worth looking into. I flat-out said that the Reagan Administration had done this is the past. I said probably (not definitely...in which case you would have a better argument) it had been done before that. Somehow, these concepts seem to keep getting missed.


Actually despite the fervent hopes of my fellow liberals, there is no real evidence that either the Reagan or original Bush administration ever did anything of the kind. There is also no evidence that the Carter or Clinton administration spied on American citizens either.

That’s what makes this such a big deal in the first place.

You certainly are welcome to have an opinion on the legality or morality of these actions, but having an opinion over if earlier administrations did the same thing or not is completely worthless without having any facts to support or refute the hypothesis.

Wouldn’t you agree?

[Sabrinaset]

One. More. Time.

The Reagan Administration was reported to have done it's press conferences which would have bad news in them on Fridays because it would be harder to refute on the evening news in The Power Game by Hedrick Smith. He also wrote The Russians, BTW. Came out in the middle 80's. You can find it on Amazon, or eBay. What is this, the second or third time I've given this as a source? Even when I give you one, it doesn't seem to be enough.

The Clinton Administration sure looked like it was doing something like spying when Filegate came around though. You remember the discovery of over 900 Republican FBI files in the White House. Files of former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and Newt Gingrich's spokesman Tony Blankley were found to be on this list. Upon the discovery of these files, the White House issued an excuse claiming that the files were mistakenly requested by a White House employee working with an outdated list. They were called a simple "snafu." Investigations into Filegate revealed that not a common White House worker but the President's friend and close advisor, Anthony Marceca, had requested the files.

[Harry Angel]

One. More. Time.

The Reagan Administration was reported to have done it's press conferences which would have bad news in them on Fridays because it would be harder to refute on the evening news in The Power Game by Hedrick Smith. He also wrote The Russians, BTW. Came out in the middle 80's. You can find it on Amazon, or eBay. What is this, the second or third time I've given this as a source? Even when I give you one, it doesn't seem to be enough.

The Clinton Administration sure looked like it was doing something like spying when Filegate came around though. You remember the discovery of over 900 Republican FBI files in the White House. Files of former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and Newt Gingrich's spokesman Tony Blankley were found to be on this list. Upon the discovery of these files, the White House issued an excuse claiming that the files were mistakenly requested by a White House employee working with an outdated list. They were called a simple "snafu." Investigations into Filegate revealed that not a common White House worker but the President's friend and close advisor, Anthony Marceca, had requested the files.



Bringing up yet another discredited Clinton "scandal" doesn’t do much to make your case of earlier administrations spying.

After a serious investigation by the Justice Department they concluded that what the Clinton Administration had told the truth, so it really doesn’t fly as an example no matter how much you folks on the Right try to spin it otherwise.

Besides, even playing the conservative game of pretending that Clinton is guilty of everything from drug smuggling to shooting Vince Foster in the head, do you really think that claiming Clinton did the same thing is some kind of excuse for Bush?

[Mike Smith]

Why are we talking about ex-presidents when the issue is Bush and spying? Diversion tactic?

[Justin Davis]

Besides, even playing the conservative game of pretending that Clinton is guilty of everything from drug smuggling to shooting Vince Foster in the head, do you really think that claiming Clinton did the same thing is some kind of excuse for Bush?

Can I answer? Well, I will anyway.

"Well, Clinton did that stuff."

"So?"

"See, Clinton got away with all kinds of crimes."

"Actually, he didn't. Besides, we're not talking about him. We're talking about Bush. Besides the crimes not being comparable, it doesn't make Bush's behavior any less heinous. Haven't you ever heard the bit about two wrongs not making a right?"

"Yeah, well, . . . at least Bush didn't sleep with a dumpy intern! Hahahaha!"

".... Yes. Quite well put."

As for proof of Bush's temper tantrums and antagonistic behavior, I'd say look it up yourself, but that's clearly not going to happen or it would have already. So, here. (http://news.google.com/news?q=bush%20temper&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wn) By the way, that's a link to Google's news search engine using the words "Bush" and "temper". If you look about 14 links down, you'll see a piece by the Washington Times which references Newsweek's cover story on Bush's behaviors, both politically and personally, that came out this week. I think those should qualify as the beginnings of reputable sources. It's not a highly guarded secret.

[Iangould]

Who's in favor of little to no market restrictions, unrestricted civil liberties and generally keeping the government out of people's lives in both economic and moral matters?

Who's closest to that?

I have to say that from what I've seen, Ireland looks like the best nation on the British isles. People generally mind their own business. The government seems pretty neutral in most international matters. There's some welfare/charity/assistance but people hate to take it and prefer private charity.

Or maybe people have sold me a bill of goods about Ireland...

Assuming you're referring to the Irish Republic:

1. The Catholic Church still has a large (although diminished) role in politics which is reflected in restrictive divorce and abortion laws;

2. They're EU members and therefore subject to all the EU laws and treaties;

3. They receive MASSIVE (absurd even) "regional" funding from the EU which amount to something ludicrous like 10% of GDP. This is what allows them to keep taxes low while pumping huge amounts into industry development and education.

[Wesley Dodds]

The truly bizarre aspect of this story is that under FICA they could have easily gotten warrants for wiretaps -- there's even a provision in the act that allows the Attorney-General to authorise a wiretap without a warrant provided they see a court within 72 hours.

So, what the Hell is going on here? Why would the Administration step outside the law to do something they could just as easily done within the law?

My first thought was that this was part of Bush's attempts to expand the power of the presidency -- he wants to leave the office a little more powerful than when he took it up, and diminishing oversight of executive actions is the best way of doing that.

But I'm starting to wonder if there's something more to this -- perhaps they've been using wiretaps for something completely unacceptable, like spying on political opponents?

[cactusmaac]

Under the provisions of FISA, spying on foreign communications between US nationals and foreign nationals is permissible and doesn't require a warrant :

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf (p.13)

A warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

Unless the text of the Executive Order is to hand and more is known about what was actually monitored, then it's difficult to comment on if there was any illegality or not.

That seems doubtful given the number of lawyers involved. From Bush' speech:

The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

Doesn't look like a scandal.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Or we should abandon or severely restrict most of the Patriot Act provisions, and kick the people who do this sort of shit - and those who support them - out of office.

You know until I heard this yesterday I still had the slightest glimmer of hope for Bush. Now I'm in agreement with you. Time for his ass to go.

[Harry Angel]

Under the provisions of FISA, spying on foreign communications between US nationals and foreign nationals is permissible and doesn't require a warrant :

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf (p.13)

A warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

Unless the text of the Executive Order is to hand and more is known about what was actually monitored, then it's difficult to comment on if there was any illegality or not.

That seems doubtful given the number of lawyers involved. From Bush' speech:



Doesn't look like a scandal.




If I could ask just one serious question.

Over and over again this administration has been discovered doing things that if not out right illegal are at the very least unethical and at least partially out of sync with the Constitution.

I won’t give the whole laundry list, but you know the basics, spying on citizens, holding citizens without the right to trial or council, rendering prisoners for torture, etc, etc..

So I have got to ask, and I really hope that you and several other of the more conservative posters will answer, what exactly does this man have to do before you guys stop defending his actions?

Hell, he isn’t even a fiscal conservative, let alone a social one, so what is it that makes you folks just keep right on supporting him?

I would really like to know.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Doesn't look like a scandal.

So in your eyes, the president is allowed to break the law?

[PatrickG]

I just saw McCain on "This Week".

MOCK EXECUTIONS? I never caught that this was among the torture measures. (Not that I support torture.)

Don't mock executions rely on people believing that we would perform REAL executions?

And why the HELL would we even want our worst enemies to mistake us for sadistic bastards like that?

I think we need to stand on principle even if it impacts our ability to play rough in order to potentially save lives. Life is not as important as liberty and principle. We need leaders who understand and believe in preserving principles and ethics ahead of some quest against evil in the world. We shouldn't stoop to other people's level nor should we give the impression that we would.

Soldiers in Iraq are supposedly dying for our way of life and their sacrifice is voided every time we even offer the hint that we would violate liberty and principle in the name of supposed pragmatism.

You know what? We lost 2,000 people in a terrorist attack. It's a terrible tragedy that most of us as Americans will remember until our graves.

But terrorism happens. It happens all over the world. We were lucky it took as long as it did to hit us. And we weren't attacked because we weren't playing dirty enough.

The dirtier we fight, the worse danger we are in.

Gotta go... George Will is on TV and making a LOT of sense...

[Sabrinaset]

Why are we talking about ex-presidents when the issue is Bush and spying? Diversion tactic?

Nope. I brought it up only after Harry Angel said "There is also no evidence that the Carter or Clinton administration spied on American citizens either." To which I would say, well, if the Bush Administration had YOUR FBI file, would you call it spying? Would you call it a violation on your civil rights? Of course you would.
Geez, Angel, I was talking about Administrations using Fridays to dump bad news on the general population. I was not talking about any administrations spying, at least, in this thread, until YOU brought it up.

And regarding..."even playing the conservative game of pretending that Clinton is guilty of everything from drug smuggling to shooting Vince Foster in the head, do you really think that claiming Clinton did the same thing is some kind of excuse for Bush?" Well...I remember during MonicaGate, that a number of people started talking about the affair Jefferson had with one of his slaves. I remember articles coming out about other Presidents having affairs. I even remember a cartoon by Conrad in the LA Times with Clinton, his arm around Jefferson's shoulder, saying "Go ahead, impeach him too!" So I would say it is not so much a conservative game as a political one.

Bottom line: Seems to be okay for liberals to defend Clinton by pointing to the behavior of other Presidents, can't see why conservatives can't do the same. Really, if Hillary is elected, you know the same thing will occur.


Justin: I would accept that as a reasonable account of W being in a bubble/losing his temper. THAT was all I was asking for.

[Alex Scott]

Under the provisions of FISA, spying on foreign communications between US nationals and foreign nationals is permissible and doesn't require a warrant :

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf (p.13)

A warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

Unless the text of the Executive Order is to hand and more is known about what was actually monitored, then it's difficult to comment on if there was any illegality or not.

That seems doubtful given the number of lawyers involved. From Bush' speech:

Doesn't look like a scandal.
Hang on, though.

I clicked the link, and found the relevant page. I assume you're talking about this part:

Under 50 U.S.C. § 1802, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information for up to one year without a court order if two criteria are satisfied. First, to utilize this authority, the Attorney General must certify in writing under oath that:
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at —
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by
means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign
powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken
communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open
and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1),
(2) or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the
contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. . .
So, unless I'm misreading this, according to the link you posted, the law expressly forbids electronic surveillance that involves US citizens without a warrant. Where can I find the part that supports your assertion?

(*edit*: corrected a bit)

[PatrickG]

Even if it is legal...

Do we really want a government that will do whatever is technically legal to protect us?

[Mike Smash!]

Even if it is legal...

Do we really want a government that will do whatever is technically legal to protect us?Big word being "technically".

The government is spying on peace groups and admitting it. They're spying on the Quakers!??

I mean, even if you love Bush, doesn't this seem weird to you?

And to brush it off not by defending the ethics of the actions, but it's legality seems like spin to me.

Government shouldn't be watching its people like a hawk. People should be watching their government like a hawk.

This news should send a chill down our collective spines.

[Sabrinaset]

So, unless I'm misreading this, according to the link you posted, the law expressly forbids electronic surveillance that involves US citizens. Where can I find the part that supports your assertion?

At 90 pages, at least on my computer, I am not reading all of that! How much of that did you trudge through? I made it through 20+ pages...

On the other hand, that "There is no substantial likelihood", from where this non-lawyer sits, looks like a loophole that half a dozen trained lawyers will drive an SUV through.

Mike Smash, the way YOU put it, THAT I can agree with. Dunno what the Quakers have done, unless W just isn't an oatmeal fan. Unless al-Quada has infiltrated the Quakers. Hmm...!

[Mike Smash!]

At 90 pages, at least on my computer, I am not reading all of that! How much of that did you trudge through? I made it through 20+ pages...

On the other hand, that "There is no substantial likelihood", from where this non-lawyer sits, looks like a loophole that half a dozen trained lawyers will drive an SUV through.

Mike Smash, the way YOU put it, THAT I can agree with. Dunno what the Quakers have done, unless W just isn't an oatmeal fan. Unless al-Quada has infiltrated the Quakers. Hmm...!These are Americans that are being spied on and the Quakers and other peace, counter recruitment and anti-war groups have been spied on and even inflitrated in the name of "homeland" security since 9/11.

Alot of these files have been released so far and groups like the Quakers are listed as "threat".

This was done in the 1960s as well and what I fear in the reinstatement of activities by the government where government agents undercover in antiwar groups would attempt to incite the groups into violence from within to discredit or bust them.

There are people out there that do want to kill us and they aren't peaceful demonstrators. Dissent is healthy and patriotic and this administration is treating it as if it's criminal activity.

[BlairH]

These are Americans that are being spied on
I heard somewhere that it was American communications with internationals. Apparently that was the whole premise of the programme, trying to detect and counter these communications (it was brought about by the notion that the 9/11 terror cell had been in contact with cells abroad).

Yes they are Americans, but no, they're not exactly going 1984 on you guys yet.

and the Quakers and other peace, counter recruitment and anti-war groups have been spied on and even inflitrated in the name of "homeland" security since 9/11.
Can't say I support this. I know what it's like: There was an undercover police officer in my gun club for a period of time.

This was done in the 1960s as well and what I fear in the reinstatement of activities by the government where government agents undercover in antiwar groups would attempt to incite the groups into violence from within to discredit or bust them.
The Government can not be blamed for all violent acts carried out by some individuals in the peace groups. There are violent individuals present in all walks of life, some of them found their way into the anti-war groups.

Dissent is healthy and patriotic
True

and this administration is treating it as if it's criminal activity.
Dissent is not dissent unless it is treated with distain by those in power.

[Mike Smash!]

The Government can not be blamed for all violent acts carried out by some individuals in the peace groups. There are violent individuals present in all walks of life, some of them found their way into the anti-war groups.No, they can't but undercover agents and cops DID join peace activist groups in the 60s and DID get orders to incite violence from within the group.

More of that, here (http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9905a/jbcointelpro.html). Read this and tell me how you would feel if the UK were doing this to your gun club.

[BlairH]

No, they can't but undercover agents and cops DID join peace activist groups in the 60s and DID get orders to incite violence from within the group.

More of that, here (http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9905a/jbcointelpro.html).

I guess I'll have to read Glick's well-documented and heavily footnoted "War At Home."

[Mike Smash!]

I guess I'll have to read Glick's well-documented and heavily footnoted "War At Home."http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0896083497/qid%3D1134936795/026-9116350-0143624

[BlairH]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0896083497/qid%3D1134936795/026-9116350-0143624

I'm sure the Library at my University will have a copy.

(checks) yes it has.

[Samurai]

These are Americans that are being spied on and the Quakers and other peace, counter recruitment and anti-war groups have been spied on and even inflitrated in the name of "homeland" security since 9/11.

Alot of these files have been released so far and groups like the Quakers are listed as "threat".

This was done in the 1960s as well and what I fear in the reinstatement of activities by the government where government agents undercover in antiwar groups would attempt to incite the groups into violence from within to discredit or bust them.

There are people out there that do want to kill us and they aren't peaceful demonstrators. Dissent is healthy and patriotic and this administration is treating it as if it's criminal activity.
Got any proof that the Quakers were labelled a "threat"? Because that just sounds silly to me... ANSWER and Black Bloc groups I can totally see, but not the Quakers...

[PatrickG]

WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.

“This peaceful, educationally oriented group being a threat is incredible,” says Evy Grachow, a member of the Florida group called The Truth Project.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

The group was later found not to be a credible threat but the Department of Defense maintained a file on them... And there is outrage that the group was investigated in the first place.

“It means that they’re actually collecting information about who’s at those protests, the descriptions of vehicles at those protests,” says Arkin. “On the domestic level, this is unprecedented,” he says. “I think it's the beginning of enormous problems and enormous mischief for the military.”

Some former senior DOD intelligence officials share his concern. George Lotz, a 30-year career DOD official and former U.S. Air Force colonel, held the post of Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight from 1998 until his retirement last May. Lotz, who recently began a consulting business to help train and educate intelligence agencies and improve oversight of their collection process, believes some of the information the DOD has been collecting is not justified.

...

Pyle, now a professor at Mt. Holyoke College in Massachusetts, says some of the information in the database suggests the military may be dangerously close to repeating its past mistakes.

“The documents tell me that military intelligence is back conducting investigations and maintaining records on civilian political activity. The military made promises that it would not do this again,” he says.

[Samurai]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

The group was later found not to be a credible threat but the Department of Defense maintained a file on them... And there is outrage that the group was investigated in the first place.
As I thought... it isn't the Quakers at all. It was an activist group called the Truth Project that held a meeting at a Quaker Lodge. The same way many different groups have meetings in our town's Masonic Lodge and Elk's Lodge.

[BlairH]

As I thought... it isn't the Quakers at all. It was an activist group called the Truth Project that held a meeting at a Quaker Lodge. The same way many different groups have meetings in our town's Masonic Lodge and Elk's Lodge.

Other.....Other groups can use your Masonic Lodge?

Not in Scotland they can't!

[Alex Scott]

At 90 pages, at least on my computer, I am not reading all of that! How much of that did you trudge through? I made it through 20+ pages...
I didn't. Page 13 was cited specifically, and I figured that was the relevant part of that page; since it didn't appear to make cactusmaac's point, I'd like to know what in that document does before I try to trudge through it.

On the other hand, the law itself (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html) isn't as much of a chore to deal with. And it does look like it gives US citizens quite a few protections against spying--though I still need to read it in full, myself.

[Sabrinaset]

Other.....Other groups can use your Masonic Lodge?

Not in Scotland they can't!

Many groups use the Masonic Lodges here in America. Besides the Masonic-affiliated groups such as DeMolay, the Job's Daughters and Rainbow for Girls, some church groups meet in them on Sundays. The Masonic groups are hard-up for money,and apparently recruits, nowadays from what I hear from a friend who is in Eastern Star. Well, maybe it's just the local lodges.

I imagine that Masonry must be doing better in Europe, although there's no real way to tell as regards a secret society, I suppose.

[Samurai]

Other.....Other groups can use your Masonic Lodge?

Not in Scotland they can't!
Heck, one of my friends rented the Masonic Lodge for his wedding reception, and he's not a mason at all. Such lodges here are simply meeting halls open for public rental to anyone who wants it except when the group that owns it has their meeting there. Saying a group had a meeting at the Quaker Lodge no more makes them Quakers than if they'd held the meeting in a Best Western Motel makes them Best Westerm employees...

[BlairH]

Many groups use the Masonic Lodges here in America. Besides the Masonic-affiliated groups such as DeMolay, the Job's Daughters and Rainbow for Girls, some church groups meet in them on Sundays. The Masonic groups are hard-up for money,and apparently recruits, nowadays from what I hear from a friend who is in Eastern Star. Well, maybe it's just the local lodges.

I imagine that Masonry must be doing better in Europe, although there's no real way to tell as regards a secret society, I suppose.

I have a funny feeling* that Scotland is the country in which Freemasonry flourishes the most....


*hehehe!

[PatrickG]

Although in this case, the Truth Project included a few Quakers.

But Masonic groups generally are a bit more mercantile over here.

[Michael P]

As I thought... it isn't the Quakers at all. It was an activist group called the Truth Project that held a meeting at a Quaker Lodge. The same way many different groups have meetings in our town's Masonic Lodge and Elk's Lodge.
Oh, gee, then that makes it OK.

Oh, wait. No it doesn't.

[Justin Davis]

Justin: I would accept that as a reasonable account of W being in a bubble/losing his temper. THAT was all I was asking for.

Glad to hear it. However, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but couldn't you have found that yourself? All I did was type in the words Bush and temper into Google's search engine. Obviously, the wonders of the internet is at your fingertips. It just seems that people often say, "Find me proof" when they could just as easily find that proof, or show how difficult it is to do so, themselves in a few seconds, maybe minutes. Now, from time to time, I'm admittedly too lazy myself to look something up. My problem is when people believe what others say just because it's someone well-known. This mostly applies to pundits who spout off some bit of damning or amazing information and the people who respond with shock/amazement/thanks without much independent thought or reseach of their own.

I do have the same question that Harry Angel does. What makes people keep supporting this man and his administration? If he was not in the Republican party, but was still involved with all that Bush has been involved in during the last year, wouldn't Republicans demand his impeachment? If nothing else, Bush is making it so the next president can do little wrong.

[Samurai]

Oh, gee, then that makes it OK.

Oh, wait. No it doesn't.
That's debatable. But it certainly puts the lie to the "OMFG, they're even investigating the QUAKERS now!" that Mike has been spreading on every thread about this...

[Justin Davis]

That's debatable. But it certainly puts the lie to the "OMFG, they're even investigating the QUAKERS now!" that Mike has been spreading on every thread about this...

Don't see how it's debatable.

[Calybos]

Samurai, you seem to be suggesting that there are vague, nebulous "anti-American" groups in this country whose civil rights it's OK to violate in the name of national security. And as long as they're groups whose agenda you disagree with, you think the Constitution doesn't (or shouldn't) apply to them.

How do you figure that? And how do you identify them--or should we just trust the government not to abuse its power?

[Samurai]

Samurai, you seem to be suggesting that there are vague, nebulous "anti-American" groups in this country whose civil rights it's OK to violate in the name of national security. And as long as they're groups whose agenda you disagree with, you think the Constitution doesn't (or shouldn't) apply to them.

How do you figure that? And how do you identify them--or should we just trust the government not to abuse its power?
Again, I don't believe that it violates "civil rights" to listen in on international calls between high level Al Queda operatives and their agents in this country. And when such people have been identified, investigating them is the only sane and rational thing to do. If several of them belong to a radical political organization, investigating that organization is then the prudent thing to do, to see if other cell members are part of the group as well.

There was review of these actions numerous times by numerous people, including leaders of Congress on at least 12 occassions. That sounds to me like this was not some rogue operation but a legitimate espionage effort. Spying works best when you don't publically blab to everyone what you're doing, how you're doing it, and whom you are looking into, so how is the govt supposed to do that openly and publically? It can't. We can only trust that the protections in place have been followed, unless we see a lot of evidence to the contrary. Have large numbers of peace activists been rounded up by the govt? No. So, at the moment, I believe that the program was limited to the necessary targets and not some massive conspiracy against the left...

[Calybos]

And the decision to bypass warrants? Was that okay, too?

But more to the point: who do you trust to identify "enemies of the state" in the first place? You're okay with wiretapping agents of enemy powers... but who do the feds have to satisfy that the target truly IS an agent, as opposed to a standard private citizen?

It's no good to say "They'll only use this police snooping power against bad guys," but freedom requires the government to be accountable and checked at every turn... because every government has an itch for more police power that can only be constrained by accountability and transparency.

The feds have tried to skip around those requirements this time, and they'd bloody well better be punished for it.

[Sabrinaset]

Glad to hear it. However...

I do have the same question that Harry Angel does. What makes people keep supporting this man and his administration?

I typed in "Bush Screaming" into my search engine, and Bush..." something else as well and found nothing. Well, nothing of use, anyway. By the way, when I'm on-line, I'm usually typing while reading/studying for a med exam, or typing a term paper on the other 'puter...so detailed research is usually too much to ask of my blonde lil head. I just got to be second in my class, and I'm trying for number one! :)
In fact, there was one thread in which I must have done a number of links to support one argument or another...I think it was the one on the Muslim Rioting in France...and the next day I got a 92 on my exam. I usually get 100's. Curse you, CBR! :) (Okay...it was really my fault, but still...)

Why do *I* support him? This reminds me of another political cartoon I saw during the Clinton Administration. A woman labeled "NOW", I think, was responding to a reporter holding papers labeled "Monica","Kathleen","fill-in-the-woman-Clinton-dated-name" with the answer "Why do I support him? Because of the children!" and, next to her was Bill with a child under one arm and some childrens bill he'd just signed in the other.
I support him because I believe his beliefs come closest to what mine are, at least insofar as any politician has beliefs. Certainly, to me, no Democrat comes close. If there is a politician out there who comes closer, I'll support him. Is W perfect? Nope. Especially when it comes to illegal immigration. But I'm not seeing someone out there...at least since Reagan...who's better.

My beliefs?

I believe there is a God.
I believe that abortion is murder.
I believe that if it weren't for profit-seeking businesses, none of us would have jobs.
I believe there's nothing wrong with seeking and acquiring wealth.
I believe if you get lung cancer from smoking, it's your own fault, and no one else should be held liable.
I believe every child needs a mother and father. The best parents for a child are his own parents.
I believe the nuclear family -- one man, one woman, and their children -- is the fundamental building block of any society.
I believe in helping individuals with their own money. I believe the other side believes in helping others with other peoples' money.
I believe the government is not capable of growing the U.S. economy. That's the role of the private sector.
I believe Presidents do not create jobs. The free-market economy takes care of that.
I believe there are only two things government can do to help end a recession: cut taxes and get out of the way of the private sector.
I believe there is no separation of church and state to be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or its Amendments.
I believe guns don't kill people. People kill people.
I believe the Second Amendment makes all the others possible.
I believe no nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
I believe Conservatism works whenever it's applied. Socialism, on the other hand, has failed every time it has been attempted.
I believe ordinary Americans are and always have been capable of doing extraordinary things.
I believe political correctness is the product of busybodies who actively seek ways to be offended.
I believe Welfare has created more poverty than any other factor in this nation's history.
I believe the terrorist strikes of September 11, 2001 were caused by Islamic militants, and were the fault of no one else.
I believe Liberals vehemently oppose placing conservatives on the judiciary, because the only way the left can advance its agenda is the willingness of activist judges to rewrite laws in their favor.
I believe the desire of environmentalists is not to protect the environment. It's to destroy capitalism.
I believe diplomacy and negotiation do not produce peace. Military victory and deterrence produce peace.
I believe feminists ostracize masculinity in men while at the same time trying to make themselves appear more masculine.
I believe the key word in the phrase "illegal alien" is "illegal."
I believe tax cuts do not cause deficits. Overspending causes deficits.
I believe that as long as liberals pay homage to affirmative action, diversity, and multi-culturalism, Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream will never be realized.
I believe that every action has a consequence.

[BlairH]

My beliefs?

I believe there is a God.
I believe that abortion is murder.
I believe that if it weren't for profit-seeking businesses, none of us would have jobs.
I believe there's nothing wrong with seeking and acquiring wealth.
I believe if you get lung cancer from smoking, it's your own fault, and no one else should be held liable.
I believe every child needs a mother and father. The best parents for a child are his own parents.
I believe the nuclear family -- one man, one woman, and their children -- is the fundamental building block of any society.
I believe in helping individuals with their own money. I believe the other side believes in helping others with other peoples' money.
I believe the government is not capable of growing the U.S. economy. That's the role of the private sector.
I believe Presidents do not create jobs. The free-market economy takes care of that.
I believe there are only two things government can do to help end a recession: cut taxes and get out of the way of the private sector.
I believe there is no separation of church and state to be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or its Amendments.
I believe guns don't kill people. People kill people.
I believe the Second Amendment makes all the others possible.
I believe no nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
I believe Conservatism works whenever it's applied. Socialism, on the other hand, has failed every time it has been attempted.
I believe ordinary Americans are and always have been capable of doing extraordinary things.
I believe political correctness is the product of busybodies who actively seek ways to be offended.
I believe Welfare has created more poverty than any other factor in this nation's history.
I believe the terrorist strikes of September 11, 2001 were caused by Islamic militants, and were the fault of no one else.
I believe Liberals vehemently oppose placing conservatives on the judiciary, because the only way the left can advance its agenda is the willingness of activist judges to rewrite laws in their favor.
I believe the desire of environmentalists is not to protect the environment. It's to destroy capitalism.
I believe diplomacy and negotiation do not produce peace. Military victory and deterrence produce peace.
I believe feminists ostracize masculinity in men while at the same time trying to make themselves appear more masculine.
I believe the key word in the phrase "illegal alien" is "illegal."
I believe tax cuts do not cause deficits. Overspending causes deficits.
I believe that as long as liberals pay homage to affirmative action, diversity, and multi-culturalism, Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream will never be realized.
I believe that every action has a consequence.
You must be my long lost twin sister or something because I agree with every single one of your points. Every single one.

Run for political office now!

[Paul McEnery]

Sabrina --

Not to be a dick about it, but your list of beliefs doesn't make too much sense. I mean, I do suppose that's the point of beliefs, that they fill in the gaps between facts. But they ought to at least have meaning, and not be counterfactual, or what's the point.


I believe there is a God.

Define your terms.


I believe that abortion is murder.

That's not a belief, that's a value judgement.


I believe that if it weren't for profit-seeking businesses, none of us would have jobs.

That's axiomatic. Only employers hire employees. You're assuming the consequent.


I believe there's nothing wrong with seeking and acquiring wealth.

So you're pro-theft.


I believe every child needs a mother and father. The best parents for a child are his own parents.

That's untrue, and all the studies prove it.


I believe the nuclear family -- one man, one woman, and their children -- is the fundamental building block of any society.

And that's a lie. Many societies operate on a different principle. So, for that matter, does ours.


I believe in helping individuals with their own money. I believe the other side believes in helping others with other peoples' money.

Which is not borne out by the facts.


I believe the government is not capable of growing the U.S. economy. That's the role of the private sector.

Then you have no understanding of international trade, or of how all western economies depend upon the governmentally supported arms trade.


I believe Presidents do not create jobs. The free-market economy takes care of that.

Then you have no understanding of how governmental involvement in the economy, a la Greenspan, alters the employment situation.


I believe there are only two things government can do to help end a recession: cut taxes and get out of the way of the private sector.

Neither of which end recessions in themselves, and FDR's approach seemed to do the trick.


I believe there is no separation of church and state to be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or its Amendments.

Then you are unable to understand the meaning of "establishment".


I believe no nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

England.


I believe Conservatism works whenever it's applied. Socialism, on the other hand, has failed every time it has been attempted.

What does "work" mean here? And has there ever been a socialist government that wasn't either at war with or subverted by America?


I believe Welfare has created more poverty than any other factor in this nation's history.

Then you know nothing about the history of the trades union movement, nor of racism in this country.


I believe the terrorist strikes of September 11, 2001 were caused by Islamic militants, and were the fault of no one else.

Then you don't understand international politics.


I believe Liberals vehemently oppose placing conservatives on the judiciary, because the only way the left can advance its agenda is the willingness of activist judges to rewrite laws in their favor.

This one's the most hypocritical and dippy. Four legs good, two legs bad.


I believe the desire of environmentalists is not to protect the environment. It's to destroy capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't exist. Unchecked corporations destroy the environment.


I believe diplomacy and negotiation do not produce peace. Military victory and deterrence produce peace.

Thank God you have nothing to do with Palestine or Northern Ireland, then.


I believe feminists ostracize masculinity in men while at the same time trying to make themselves appear more masculine.

Get back in the kitchen, wench. And take those shoes off. :evilsmile


I believe tax cuts do not cause deficits. Overspending causes deficits.

Inane. Spending more than you earn causes deficits. So you'd better tax appropriately.


I believe that as long as liberals pay homage to affirmative action, diversity, and multi-culturalism, Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream will never be realized.

Well now that's not only stupid, it's offensive. It's only because of liberal commitment to ending not only discrimination but the consequences of discrimination that any discrimination has been ended.

And besides: who's going to be the culture nazi who tells us how we can behave, which religion we can practice, what language we're allowed to use, and all those other things that the second amendment, which you so supposedly revere, guarantee?


I believe that every action has a consequence.
Return to your comment about 9/11.

[Alex]

Ijust have one question.
Why is this a story?
Really, didn't we already know this was going on, and wasn't it one of the basis for attack of the patriot act?
Because i'm 100% postive i heard people on tv and on these boards screaming about this going on.
So...why does this story seem so important if we knew it was happening?
and why is Bush admitting it happened when...i thought we already knew it was happening.

[Mike Smash!]

Sabrina --

Not to be a dick about it, but your list of beliefs doesn't make too much sense. I mean, I do suppose that's the point of beliefs, that they fill in the gaps between facts. But they ought to at least have meaning, and not be counterfactual, or what's the point.


Define your terms.


That's not a belief, that's a value judgement.


That's axiomatic. Only employers hire employees. You're assuming the consequent.


So you're pro-theft.


That's untrue, and all the studies prove it.


And that's a lie. Many societies operate on a different principle. So, for that matter, does ours.


Which is not borne out by the facts.


Then you have no understanding of international trade, or of how all western economies depend upon the