| Author |
Message |
    
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 137
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 8:34 pm: | 
|
Here is the story from Time:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html
Sounds like we were passing info to the UK. Did the Bush Administration do something right? No - I'm certain someones civil rights were violated by this fascist administration. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5456
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 8:38 pm: |
|
No one was upset about monitoring international phone calls; it was domestic calls that the fracas was about. Presumably in this UK-based plot one or all of the participants in the bugged communication were outside the US. |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1859
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 10:25 pm: |
|
Be careful Spinal, Dave has an itchy trigger finger to ban someone, especially those that dare have the audacity to challenge his mundane leftist thought process. If he would only follow his brother's wishes and not be so ban happy (or so the latter says), MOL would be a better, more honest place.
Dave, I will go on the record to say I don't hate arabs/muslims. I hate islamofacists. Them and their philosophy deserve death. Many individuals can make the distinction, you can't?
And if constitute's "hate speech" (an MOL no no) then see everyone sometime in the unknown future.
I am sure this foiled plot was the result of many intelligence agencies working together, including the US.
What is pathetic is that within Britain's triumph of stopping a potentially horrific terrorist attack, some of you still have the need and desire to slag your own country.
Tsk, tsk, and then you continue to wonder why some people question your thought processes, and yes, even your patriotism? Go figure...
-SLK |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5457
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 11:16 pm: |
|
Slag our own country? A bunch of Islamofascists try to kill a thousand Americans and Brits, and what I see here is a nonstop slagging of the millions of Americans who consider themselves Liberal.
If we're against the war, well say so; but being against the war doesn't mean that we're against our own country.
Stop playing games. The conservatives in power right now have it within their power to unite the country behind efforts to prevent terrorist attacks. Instead they -- and you -- choose to use events such as this for short-term political gain. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10436
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 11:26 pm: |
|
Bush is preying on Americans' inability to access risk rationally in order to score cheap political points and control the populace. SLK is gripped by fear, poor fellow. The terrorists have conquered his spirit.
It's ok to hate Islamofacists, by the way. Apologies aren't really required. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 9:04 am: |
|
I wanted to post this here because I think this is as good a place as any. Give it a read, it's quick, and for me, about says it all.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/NanceGreggs/70
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1432
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 9:06 am: |
|
I love this. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1859
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 9:58 am: |
|
Spinal Tap - by authorizing warrantless spying by the NSA the President broke the law.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1389573
Plenty of detail in there.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1334469
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5459
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 10:28 am: |
|
You may love it but I hate it. This country is under a threat and need unity, but it's instead being more ruthlessly divided every day. And the fish rots from the head. |
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 1178
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 11:47 am: |
|
I guess those million $ sniffing machines that they installed @ airports are now useless. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 142
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 11:49 am: |
|
That’s wonderful commentary. But here is the actual law. Take particular note of the title of 50 USC 1802 (FISA) - Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court :
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/sect ions/section_1802.html
If I’m not mistaken, the administration followed this to the letter. And just so there is no confusion regarding the terms used here, such as what constitutes a “foreign power”, here is 50 USC 1801 for the definitions:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/sect ions/section_1801.html
Did Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, and Carter all break the law too? Because they all did the same thing. As a matter of fact, I think one of the most impassioned defenses of warrantless electronic surveillance came out of the Clinton Administration. And if laws were broken, how come no one has been charged?
Regardless, many would argue that FISA (along with the War Powers Act) which has never been challenged in court, is itself an unconstitutional violation of the president’s explicit constitutional authority and responsibility as the commander in chief to protect the country. If the county is attacked, no one is going to ask the legislature how this happened, and certainly no one is going to ask the courts, they are going to ask the president. The responsibility is the executive’s and the executive’s alone due to the fact that when facing a threat, the nation cannot have 50 commanders in chief in the Senate, 435 in the House, and however many federal judges there are. That’s not to say they don’t have an important role to play but it’s a limited one.
I disagree with the notion that the commander in chief has to get a permission slip from a judge before gathering intelligence information on our enemies during wartime. Of course, if you hold the belief that the biggest threat to our national security is not terrorism or rogue states but rather our own government, especially when there is a Republican administration, then I can see how someone would think this is reasonable.
Furthermore, FISA is a Cold War relic that grew out of the abuses of the 1960’s when this technology was new (like the Kennedy Administration’s tapping MLK). It was designed to uncover espionage in an age when telecommunication consisted of Ma Bell issued rotary phones in people’s kitchens. It was not designed to defend against terrorists attempting to exterminate us while using pre-paid cell phones, Blackberrys, and the Internet.
|
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1948
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Did Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, and Carter all break the law too? Because they all did the same thing.
This is a common misperception.
I disagree with the notion that the commander in chief has to get a permission slip from a judge before gathering intelligence information on our enemies during wartime.
No one says you do. As has been pointed out innumberable times, they can get a warrant after the search. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1861
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Quote:And if laws were broken, how come no one has been charged
In case you havent noticed, the republicans are not allowing any investigations. No investigation = no charges.
I like how you are focusing on foreign powers here when it has been reported many times that the wiretapping is occuring on conversations originated and ending in America.
Updated the FISA law is easy enough, all it would take is an example of where it needs revising and a request from the executive branch to congress to fix it.
Bush authorized this before 9/11. Servailance on Americans without a FISA warrant. Illegal.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/16920 |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 143
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 12:26 pm: |
|
You obviously didn't read the definitions in 1801 as I recommended. Foreign powers or agents of foreign powers can be located in the U.S. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1863
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 12:28 pm: |
|
I read it alright. I suppose by that definition you include every body in the USA, well I dont. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12375
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 12:48 pm: |
|
FISA was implemented in reaction to Clinton activities, by a GOP controlled Congress if I recall correctly. Now a GOP President finds FISA inconvenient.
I don't have a problem with the electronic stuff, just the fact that it isn't monitored. Power like that should have checks and balances. Can you imagine what someone like Cheney can do with that power on a political or business level?
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Forget who said that, but I buy it.
|
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1860
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 9:02 pm: |
|
Dave-
I am not afraid of terrorists. I am afraid of the methods you choose to deal with them.
Doing nothing is not an option.
-SLK |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10465
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 9:38 pm: |
|
Who said do nothing?
We're doing less than nothing by squandering money and lives in Iraq. |
S.L.K. 2.0
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1870
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 9:41 pm: |
|
Dave-
Take a break on Iraq, ok? Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq...jesus...there is much more going on in this world than a war in iraq....
so dave, what do you suggest we do with the terrorist problem?
-SLK |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10466
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 10:09 pm: |
|
Stop demagoguing the issue would go a long way. If you were a terror leader and have a handful of guys willing to kill themselves for your cause you can only do so much with limited resources. You need the American media and politicians to play up the action for the terror to spread. The politicians get what they want (taking a tough stand for freedom!), the media gets what it wants (eyeballs) and the terrorists look like giant threats (which they really aren't if you assess the risk rationally). This is called rewarding terror with more terror.
At the same time, keep killing terrorists when you find them and disrupting their network.
And, ultimately, take a close unbiased look at the root causes of terror and work with moderate nations to alleviate some of the causes. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5478
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 9:00 pm: |
|
Here's a good take on terrorists and how we allow them to terrorize us: http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/08/wait-arent-you-scared.html
I especially like the Churchill/FDR/Today comparison.
It's time to stop freaking out and wetting your pants. Stand up and act like Americans. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 155
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 8:20 am: |
|
The problem with this position is that is assumes that we are in a period analogous to the 1940s. I contend that we are actually in a period analogous to the 1930s when total denial abounded. A time when people like Churchill and FDR were desperately trying to raise the alarm about the gathering threat and what had to be done to end it and few were paying attention to them. Churchill was regularly derided as an alarmist at best and as a warmonger at worst. Even after the war officially broke out in 1939, many in the still isolationist U.S., opposed FDR’s Lend Lease Act under the belief that we were getting unnecessarily involved in Europe’s war. Today we are in a similar situation with many refusing to take the jihadists’ word, regarding their plans for us, at face value.
The author also gets into the whole investigative angle and the brilliance of the British authorities which again is fine, so long as he supports providing U.S. authorities with the tools that will allow us to operate at a level of efficiency similar to the Western Europeans with regard to intelligence gathering. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4677
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 8:58 am: |
|
Undoubtedly, a portion of the Arab Islamic world wants to establish a Third Sunni Dynasty along the lines of the Caliphate of Baghdad. The notion that they could succeed at this is a joke. So, if a terrorist says they are going to kill Westerners in the name of a new dyanasty, I take the threat seriously. However, I can't even begin to take seriously the possibility that they might succeed.
Everybody takes seriously the terrorist threat - a threat fueled by enormous numbers of unemployed young men, oppression and resentment against the West. But fighting terrorism is more like fighting organized crime whereas fighting the Germans was a conventional military problem.
The problem I have with the incessant yammering that our police agencies are hampered by the Constitution is that nobody seems to be able to demonstrate how 9-11, to name one, would have been prevented if that pesky Constitution hadn't gotten in the way. As far as I can tell from the public record, 9-11 happened due to a lack of focus and interagency cooperation. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1876
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 11:24 am: |
|
Quote:Take a break on Iraq, ok? Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq...jesus...there is much more going on in this world than a war in iraq....
Iraq is still the major issue because it is draining our treasury and our resources. It is limiting the ability of the country to respond to threats elsewhere in the world and it has demoralized our troops because they know they are sitting in the middle of a civil war.
Interesting that you want us to take a break on the biggest issue affecting our country today.
300 Billion dollars and counting. But of course I am sure that you would prefer to discuss abortion or gay marriage. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5482
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 11:25 am: |
|
pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 157
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
|
When Hitler wrote Mein Kamph in 1925 he was considered a joke. Even when he became chancellor in 1933, most considered him a joke. Additionally, for all of their conventional power, the Axis powers never managed to strike us at home. A feat obviously achieved by our current enemies. Nuclear weapons were still theoritical and while they were in possession of chemical weapons and they means to deliver them they were never used. Do you doubt that if the jihadists possessed chemical weapons and a delivery system that they would hesitate for a second to attack? In many ways the unconventional, transnational, asymmetrical threat we face today is more grave than the one we faced in the 1930s and 40s. As the president has stated, to wait for this threat to become imininent before acting is too late.
Agency turf wars contributed to 9-11 but I think one of the major factors was the inability of FBI investigators to obtain a warrant for Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer because their lawyers didn’t think there was probable cause. An obstacle that MI5 would not have had to deal with. Furthermore, I believe the now infamous “wall” between intelligence and law enforcement was a contributing factor. You’re right, in that that was erected not so much because of the constitution or laws, but rather is was self-imposed regulations implemented by people who see the U.S. Government as the greatest threat to national security. As former Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote in her memo to then Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick:
"This is not an area where it is safe or prudent to build unnecessary walls or to compartmentalize our knowledge of any possible players, plans or activities,"
"The single biggest mistake we can make in attempting to combat terrorism is to insulate the criminal side of the house from the intelligence side of the house, unless such insulation is absolutely necessary. Excessive conservatism...can have deadly results."
"We must face the reality that the way we are proceeding now is inherently and in actuality very dangerous."
Black helicopter Libertarians on the right and blame America firsters on the left want us to combat terrorists using platoons of lawyers and agents, spending hundreds if not thousands of man-hours, preparing reams of paperwork. Once complete, this small forest worth of paper goes back and fourth between agents and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, between the USAO and DOJ, between DOJ and the FISA Court, all so that the commander in chief can get permission from a judge, who bears no constitutional responsibility for defending the nation, to conduct surveillance on our nation’s enemies during war time. And all while our enemies, using modern communications methods, laugh at our ponderous ineptness while running circles around our intelligence agencies. I guess it could be worse. Liberals could sue New York City to require the police to get a warrant before conducting voluntary random bag searches on the subway. Oh wait – they did do that.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5485
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 12:28 pm: |
|
You're still not addressing why we're in Iraq. Saddam was neither a jihadist or a participant in 9/11. If Hitler is such a fine analog for today's terrorist threat, why haven't we captured bin laden?
The would-be bombers in London were captured not because Tony Blair sent infantry squadrons into East London, but by means of the thousands of man hours and platoons of agents you so glibly dismiss. Three different agencies infiltrated the group, and made it possible for them to round up not just the would-be bombers but a lot of their support network as well -- something even the most well-placed bomb dropped in one of Britain's Islamic neighborhoods wouldn't have been able to do.
The notion that we're against interagency cooperation is a straw man. It was us on the left who were decrying how the FBI dropped the ball on Moussaoui and the harassment of the whistleblowers. The right was busy gearing up for Iraq and legislating against whistleblowers. And if Bush feels FISA is too restrictive, he has a Congress that's as compliant as a five-dollar whore. Get the law changed. But the problem is, he doesn't want to obey any law, even one that lets him do as he sees fit. They don't want to cooperate or submit to oversight. It's more important to act like cowboys than to actually defend the constitution and the laws that have made this country what it is. |
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2965
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 8:41 pm: |
|
tom, Dave, Hoops, great responses. |
Gordon Agress
Citizen
Username: Odd
Post Number: 509
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Quote:You're still not addressing why we're in Iraq.
Here's what I think. The invasion of Iraq was justified to wipe out the serious potential for a WMD threat appearing sometime around 2010. In the event it turned out that Hussein's program was so incompetent they would have had trouble getting weapon-grade uranium to explode, but that piece of good news wasn't available at the time. Also we don't know if they would have gotten their act together or just bought a bomb from Pakistan or North Korea with their oil money. Anyway, our primary purposes were accomplished for the mid-term when we pulled Saddam out of the ground and a case could be made for leaving right after we shot him.
We stayed, and we're still there, because the lesson of World War I (and now Afghanistan) is that it's a bad idea to leave shattered states lying around. Also we have a humane and political obligation to fix what we broke, even if we had a good reason for breaking it.
I appreciate that many in our Administration twisted on occasion this to make it look like an anti-al Qaeda deal, and that many officials talked stupid about being welcomed with flowers etc. I'm not happy about that but it doesn't change the fact that there were indeed good reasons for invading and then staying.
Anyway, it isn't what the thread is really about so if someone wants discuss maybe we should go somewhere else.
The Kung Fu Monkey thing is genius.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page