Bush's "Snoopgate"

[indivision]

Why the hell did they hide this information from us until after Bush was reelected?!?

Because it's just muck and they know it. Only good for a quick approval rating quiver.

The truth is, Bush did not order these actions without any over-sight. It was run through a congressional committee with neither Democrats or Republicans raising any concerns about legality. If Bush is held for these horrendous and malicious efforts to surveil terrorist plots, many others must also.

Those who hate Bush already and are trying to trump this up would be the first in line to cry foul if there was another terrorist attack and it was discovered that Bush knew about but didn't order surveilance on the perpetuators. People are talking like their lives have changed or will change one iota whether or not some potential terrorists phone conversations were listened to. If anything did affect anyone who didn't deserve it, it would probably be to prevent an attack.

Until it's demonstrated that there was an abuse of power here and not a sincere effort to find more information about terrorists (good thing i say), I'm switching on to ESPN.

[argonauta]

Hope you don't get my opinion the wrong way, but on my own experience, and for what I've been watching/reading over the last few years, I think the terrorist won the war already. There's nothing else to do. They don't even have to attack again. They've reached their goal with 9/11

The US, a country whose slogan has always been related to freedom, considered as the land of freedom, it's not anymore like that. People are paranoid, not only of external attacks, but of their own government as well. Nobody is trusted anymore, and little by little you're losing your rights to be free. It's a shame really, but it's happening that way. Starting with airport security, where you're treated as a threat for carrying a lighter; those security revisions are nothing but a cover to give people a false sense of security. Clear example: while maybe they check for knives, cool, remove them, but man, anyone with training could kill somebody with a simple pen, and there are lots of objects you could use as weapons.

A lot of people over there live scared of what's going to happen next. There can't be any mass congregation of people (for example New Yorks New Year's eve party) without having a big infrastructure of security in place, just in case. If you are unluckily a little dark, or have a funny accent, people will look at you scared. People feel uncomfortable if you talk in a foreign language (even if you're saying: "damn, that girl has a fine ass", they'll think you're talking about how to kill somebody).

After 9/11 society changed, a lot. US society above all. The fact that people have to be controlled, and the fact that the government is taking extreme measures for that control, at the cost of sacrificing everything the US stands for, it's just a clear proof of US failure: another example is what happened in New Orleans: they focused so much on terrorism, that they are taking their eyes away from other real problems.

The US I visited in 1997 is completely different of the US I visited in 2005. It's a shame really.

Now, this opinion is partly mine, but it's also the general opinion of a lot of latinamericans, so please don't take it wrongly. It's the point of view of the people outside the US, of the third world specifically, that everything that happened to the US had to happened for how they handled their politics with other countries (mainly, intervining where and when they wanted. Forcing countries to follow economic politics that clearly didn't help in their development). As for most americans the attacks happened because terrorists hate americans because the way they live, because they are free, because they are civilized, the rest of the world thinks they happened because of how the US acts in other countries. This isn't understood by most people (damn, when I tried explaining the point of view of Latinamerica to people in the US, I'd get a look as if I was trying to convince them that Luke Skywalker is real).
Thank god for internet and technology, you can be informed immediately and clearly about what's going on, but if you take that fact, the media really doesn't tell the whole story, and fixes reality a lot! (back to New Orleans, it was clear, did you ever see a floating dead body on TV? did you see the whole army taking ownership of the city and censoring the press? a lot of people reported that what we were watching wasn't what was really going on).

I have nothing against americans, and I think they are cool (and the girls are hot), and they are paying unfairly for their government actions. I think that even if Clinton or the NSA did wiretapping like what you're saying, it doesn't justify that people need to get informed about what's going on, even if it's right or wrong, but you should fight for your freedom of information. Whatever the government does, for national security, to fight terrorism, to improve your quality of life, should be directed for the good of the people. So, above all, I think it's wrong that the "protection" they want to give to the people is actually controlling them, restricting them, taking their rights away, in the name of freedom.

It is said that the people have the government they deserved though (ha, damn, if that's true, Ecuador's a mess, we've had like 10 presidents in the last 5 years, most of them are now living abroad, because if they come back they'll go directly to jail).

[gerbick]

Is this a work of fiction!?... Gotta be.

[XU1]

Is this a work of fiction!?... Gotta be.

On a blog with no references......I would be more than a bit sceptical.

iTony

[indivision]

most freedoms arent much use when you are dead.

i think you (argo) are right about paranoia and mistrust of the government. but, i dont think it started due to terrorists. people have mistrusted the man since the man existed. it's human nature to assume the worst and it doesn't help that the founding principles of the country can be taught in elementary school but the actual workings of government are complex enough that the average citizen never bothers to learn how it works.

imo, another point of confusion is the word freedom itself. we have never had absolute freedom. there will always be a necessity to have some restrictions. its simply hysteria to think that we cant continue to live in practical freedom in 99.9% the same as we have for years AND have increased security measures. and its difficult to make the argument that we are now having to retract the freedoms we have always stood for when the last time we had similar issues we set up internment camps.

things have changed and we need to adapt. i swear its like sending little Jimmy off to kintergarten for the first time. "its going to be ok." having to tolerate some surveilance and security measures is not going to keep us from getting fat at mcdonalds, wait in line for xbox360s, attend the Jimmy Buffet concert or whatever else we find ourselves doing. its probably just going to make us safer.

[XU1]

If this had come out before the election then he wouldn't be the president right now and we would be a lot safer.

But America has not been attacked since 9/11.....the inevitable will happen regardless if Gore was president or another president after this one is in power.....

Quite frankly....Osama must be laughing his head off....all this kid of talking does is emboldens his view of the Wests stupidity.....aided by usefull idiots such as the Civil Liberties Unions.

Really this is not about wire tapping, this is about GW Bush, the Democrats The New York Times and their liberal editors and writers hate for him.

And if you aint planning to prepare some sort of terrorist attack on US soil then you don't have nothing to worry about.

If it prevents an attack from happening and possibly saving the lives of some ones families and friends and the countless deaths of others..then all I can say is Duby'a.

iTony

[Frets]

most freedoms arent much use when you are dead.

What an extremely unamerican thing to say.

Give me liberty or give me death

Xboxes aren't on the barganing table. When you have nothing to bargan with
Ask David Hicks which he pefers.

[indivision]

What an extremely unamerican thing to say.

only if you read into it what you want instead of what i meant. by your analysis of it, that murder is illegal is unamerican too.

Xboxes aren't on the barganing table. When you have nothing to bargan with Ask David Hicks which he pefers.

This guy?

[swampy]

heh. they probably were going to post something about it but quickly discovered that its public information that Clinton ordered the NSA to make several times more of these exact same actions without a warrant during his administration. nothing really new here.

so the problem is not what the government do but who the government is that does it?

What a crazy country you live in where it doesn't matter what someone does as long as they're the party you voted for

[gerbick]

It's more like this isn't a new action, perpetuated by Democrat and Republican presidents alike.

However, as far as it goes though, I think there is a bit of the "story" that's missing from why this is making headlines now - there's a possible connection to all of the other happenings around Rove, Abramoff, et al. But I can't make it at this moment.

In Soviet Russia, government spies on you and your neighbor spies on you too. - Yakov Smirnoff

Besides, the M15's already have stated they're overstepping civil liberties for "security reasons" in the UK already.

[indivision]

so the problem is not what the government do but who the government is that does it?

What a crazy country you live in where it doesn't matter what someone does as long as they're the party you voted for

and what a crazy forum this is where people so often read what they want to into others statements. in this case, reading more of the thread would have clarified:

I wouldn't be happy about any president having to be prosecuted. The relavence of Clinton to the story is that he, as well as Bush was legally justified to order the actions. The Times article states that Bush's actions were 'unprecedented' when, in fact, they were not. It's simple muckraking.

[indivision]

Besides, the M15's already have stated they're overstepping civil liberties for "security reasons" in the UK already.

or shooting you for wearing a warm jacket in the summer?

[gerbick]

dude did look suspicious though. not being sarcastic... a goose down jacket in the summer?

what the hell is muckraking?

[indivision]

dude did look suspicious though. not being sarcastic... a goose down jacket in the summer?

what the hell is muckraking?

it turns out that its mostly a good thing historically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraking

but, i think it is most commonly used to describe the tactic of raising technicalities or potential negative interperetations of a political situation despite the existence of more substantial evidence contrary to and/or without a genuine, constructive purpose. in short, negative hype.

i agree about the guy that was shot.

[swampy]

Besides, the M15's already have stated they're overstepping civil liberties for "security reasons" in the UK already.

for "already" read "since time began"

[swampy]

dude did look suspicious though. not being sarcastic... a goose down jacket in the summer?

what the hell is muckraking?

muckraking kinda works better if you use pertinent facts, such as....

or shooting you for wearing a warm jacket in the summer?

since proved to be totally incorrect statements from witnesses, he was wearing a thin jacket, didn't vault the barrier and didn't run. Go UK! Arm all police now!

[Loyal Rogue]

The truth is, Bush did not order these actions without any over-sight. It was run through a congressional committee with neither Democrats or Republicans raising any concerns about legality.

That is pure spin and extremely deceitful.
By his own admission, the only ones who Bush consulted before making this decision were his lawyers and Gonzales.

Bush said Saturday that the lawfulness of his directives was affirmed by the attorney general and White House counsel, a list that omitted the legislative and judicial branches of government.

Source

The Whitehouse did inform a few members of the House and Senate intelligence committees of the presidential directive but did not ask them for approval or advice and also prohibited them from discussing the matter with anyone including their own staff, other members of congress or even the other Intelligence Committee members who were informed.

Are you calling THAT over-sight?

Jay Rockefeller, top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was so upset over this that he had to handwrite a letter (because he was prohibited from telling his own staff) to Cheney protesting the lack of oversight on this.

July 17, 2003

Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.

Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefeller

Link to the actual letter PDF.

...Until it's demonstrated that there was an abuse of power here and not a sincere effort to find more information about terrorists (good thing i say), I'm switching on to ESPN.

It's already public knowledge that the administration was spying on Americans and peace advocates who opposed the war.
Since Bush didn't have to show any judge who he was spying on this allowed him to spy on anyone he considered an enemy with impunity and zero oversight... even political enemies...
Exactly like Nixon tried to do but was shotdown by the Supreme Court which is the whole basis of the FISA law in the first place.

I wonder which senators Bush has on his enemies list...?

But go ahead and switch to ESPN.
Most Bush apologists are going to be sticking their heads in the sand on this just like on all of the other criminal activities going on in this administration.

One thing has become very clear to me of late... that is no matter what this criminal scumbag does his base will always support and defend him.
He could rape and strangle a baby in Times Square and the Bush apologists here would try to justify it and argue that the baby must have deserved it.
It sickens me.

[haikumania]

One thing has become very clear to me of late... that is no matter what this criminal scumbag does his base will always support and defend him.
He could rape and strangle a baby in Times Square and the Bush apologists here would try to justify it and argue that the baby must have deserved it.
It sickens me.

Actually, they would argue that it's okay because Clinton did it too, but otherwise you are spot on.

[Loyal Rogue]

Actually, they would argue that it's okay because Clinton did it too,

OMG, Clinton raped and strangled a baby in Times Square?!?!
I must have missed that FOX News broadcast...

[haikumania]

OMG, Clinton raped and strangled a baby in Times Square?!?!
I must have missed that FOX News broadcast...

Actually I don't think he did, but if Bush does one day, then it will immediately become commonly accepted fact among his supporters that Clinton did, indeed, do the same, but it was covered up by the traitorous liberal media.