http://gamingtrend.com
July 24, 2014, 01:11:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: [RP] Bush Admits Authorizing Domestic Spying  (Read 8373 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #120 on: December 21, 2005, 10:13:03 PM »

Quote from: "whiteboyskim"
I heard on the radio that there are specific articles in both the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post today that go in-depth on the history of the presidential powers in relation to this very thing, but since I have no login to either website I was unable to verify this claim. Is anyone else able to?


www.bugmenot.com
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #121 on: December 21, 2005, 10:46:20 PM »

Apparently, Bush's illegal activities were not limited just foreign calls.  Bush has also been engaged in domestic spying.  With zero oversight.

Meaning, of course, that Bush has just been caught in ANOTHER lie, since he just a few days ago he said that all his 'wiretapping' was done, with one exception, on calls with at least one foreign endpoint.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3603


View Profile
« Reply #122 on: December 21, 2005, 11:27:33 PM »

Quote
Apparently, Bush's illegal activities were not limited just foreign calls. Bush has also been engaged in domestic spying. With zero oversight.

Meaning, of course, that Bush has just been caught in ANOTHER lie, since he just a few days ago he said that all his 'wiretapping' was done, with one exception, on calls with at least one foreign endpoint.


Well, let's be fair: if the NSA is spying on an American citizen who makes some phone calls to his Jordanian friend's cell phone, and then one day his friend brings his cell phone with him on a visit to the U.S., the NSA could very well record a phone call between them without realizing at the time that they were technically both in the United States.  Based on the information in that article, it's a little early to be reading any malicious intent into what could legitimately be honest mistakes.

It does, on the other hand, point out a pretty big flaw in the program: if these calls were so "urgent" that Bush couldn't even be bothered to seek warrants for them after they had already been recorded, why wouldn't the NSA have realized that "Person B" was coming to visit the United States?

It also doesn't change the fact that George W. Bush simply does not have the legal authority to grant himself brand-new executive powers in the first place.  Honestly, the more I read about this, the more convinced I become that this entire affair is a textbook example of an impeachable offense.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
lokiju
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 533



View Profile
« Reply #123 on: December 22, 2005, 01:20:51 AM »

Quote from: "Autistic Angel"
Honestly, the more I read about this, the more convinced I become that this entire affair is a textbook example of an impeachable offense.


Honestly, any president, the leading representative of our Constitution, who states that it's just a goddamned piece of paper, should be impeached for that alone.  Seems pretty damn close to national treason, coupled with breaking of laws based on said piece of paper.  

Who the fuck is he to throw around accusations of so many Americans being evil-doers and aiding terrorism when he just spit on the very essence of what our country stands for?  Bush has become very anti-American IMHO.
Logged

Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play

Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot.
GGMark
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: December 22, 2005, 01:34:04 AM »

Quote from: "Autistic Angel"
Quote

It also doesn't change the fact that George W. Bush simply does not have the legal authority to grant himself brand-new executive powers in the first place.  Honestly, the more I read about this, the more convinced I become that this entire affair is a textbook example of an impeachable offense.

-Autistic Angel



FINALLY!  This was really my point all along.  Wether impeachable or not.  I dont know.  I dont know the law really well at all.  I am sorry, a president is not allowed to just give himself new executive powers when he wants them and congress does not want him to have them.  Checks and Balances.  Democracy can be slow sometimes, but it works.
Logged
lokiju
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 533



View Profile
« Reply #125 on: December 22, 2005, 01:47:06 AM »

Quote from: "GGMark"
Quote from: "Autistic Angel"

It also doesn't change the fact that George W. Bush simply does not have the legal authority to grant himself brand-new executive powers in the first place.  Honestly, the more I read about this, the more convinced I become that this entire affair is a textbook example of an impeachable offense.

-Autistic Angel



FINALLY!  This was really my point all along.  Wether impeachable or not.  I dont know.  I dont know the law really well at all.  I am sorry, a president is not allowed to just give himself new executive powers when he wants them and congress does not want him to have them.  Checks and Balances.  Democracy can be slow sometimes, but it works.


If what Bush has done is not grounds for impeachment, then by golly the Repubs went a little far in trying to boot Clinton for lying about having sexual relations with an intern, no?

Bush has seemingly lied about many things that affect this entire planet, let alone our neck of the woods...not sure lying about a BJ is even a contender.
Logged

Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play

Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot.
Scoop20906
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 937


You can't ignore me!!


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: December 22, 2005, 02:18:09 PM »

I think the nail in the coffin of Clinton's impeachment was the fact he lied to a grand jury and then admitted he lied afterwards.

But you are right, we have a situation where a sitting president admitted he broke a law so if Congress has any balls (which they don't), they should at least hold impeachment hearings. I don't think it would go that far.
Logged

The Gone Gold Effect has a strong influence on the weak minded ...
GamerTag: Scoop20906
lokiju
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 533



View Profile
« Reply #127 on: December 22, 2005, 06:00:29 PM »

Quote from: "Scoop20906"
I think the nail in the coffin of Clinton's impeachment was the fact he lied to a grand jury and then admitted he lied afterwards.

But you are right, we have a situation where a sitting president admitted he broke a law so if Congress has any balls (which they don't), they should at least hold impeachment hearings. I don't think it would go that far.


Oh believe me, I'm not defending Clinton's actions in any way.  However, I do feel that his offense seems insignificant when compared to what has come to light in Bush's little world...and yet Bush will not be impeached.  How does that work exactly?
Logged

Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play

Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot.
Scoop20906
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 937


You can't ignore me!!


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: December 22, 2005, 06:20:03 PM »

Ok, I have been reading more about this issue and I am starting to see what the Bush Administrations is talking about.

First off, let me clarify somethings to start. (This just helps me work this out.)

The FBI is charged with spying on US citizens if they have reason to believe there is criminal activitity and require warrants. Also, the DOD can also spy on US citizens to protect military bases and military recruiting. I'm not sure if the DOD requires a warrant.

Now, the NSA has Echelon which is the ability to cast a wide net and listening to every electronic conversation and reading every email. The NSA is charged with spying on foreign powers and has no authority to spying on US citizens. No authority!

But, with Echelon, they are already catching EVERYTHING. Then they are sifting through these databases looking for key phrases or recognizing voice patterns. Echelon is entirely secret (the US won't admit it exists) and I'm guessing needs NO to warrant to listen. The idea is none of this information will be used in court so there is no need.

Now, here where it gets tricky. The Bush administration knows it is already spying on everyone, foreign and domestic targets. But, when they catch these "terrorists" they have no way to prosecute them because the information implicating them can't be used in our court system and I doubt in the military court system either.

Then I read this:
Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326.html)

Ok, so now what Bush has authorized is the use of NSA (Echelon) to spy on specific targets which now include US citizens and then going to FISA afterwards to get warrant to make it legal which can then be used in court.

Also, the Bush administration is arguing that is it impossible to get warrants for every phone call and email that they are monitoring, therefore he signed to order to bypass the process until the criminal activity is found, and then they ask for a warrant to make that evidence legal for court.

In a way, I see their point now.

The only problem is all of this violates the 4th amendment as it is written now.

Of course, the only point of the 4th amendment is to prevent abuses or misuse of this information that is being collected.

Saw this in a BBC Story:
In a report commissioned by the European Parliament he produced evidence that the NSA snooped on phone calls from a French firm bidding for a contract in Brazil. They passed the information on to an American competitor, which won the contract. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/503224.stm)

What say you?

Does anyone have a problem with the NSA spying on us? If you don't have anything to hide, why should you be worried right?
Logged

The Gone Gold Effect has a strong influence on the weak minded ...
GamerTag: Scoop20906
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #129 on: December 22, 2005, 07:07:46 PM »

1.  I don't care whether I'm doing something wrong or not.  I don't want people spying on me.
2.  Since there is no oversight, how does anyone know the activities of the investigators are legal or ethical?  What if, say, SBC starts bribing these guys to spy on their competitors.  Then it turns into spying for pay, which is definitely not something that is 'protecting our country'.
3. Since there is no oversight, how does anyone know that Bush isn't spying on the DNC?

I don't like Bush, and I don't trust Bush.  The man is a liar, he continues to lie, and he continues to be discredited.  How many times does he have to pull the football away from you, Charlie Brown?

He has also taken at least one US Citizen (Jose Padilla) and violated his basic rights as a citizen.  We know about Padilla because he was arrested in the middle of a US airport.  So what I'm curious about is how many citizens they have taken that we DON'T know about.  This 'secret prison' shit is very scary as well.

In fact, I challenge anybody to cite one thing Bush has done during his entire presidency which can be viewed as a net gain for every person in this country.
Logged
lokiju
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 533



View Profile
« Reply #130 on: December 22, 2005, 08:57:29 PM »

Quote from: "unbreakable"
In fact, I challenge anybody to cite one thing Bush has done during his entire presidency which can be viewed as a net gain for every person in this country.


He didn't make us find out that some girl gave him a BJ, leading us all to picture that ugly scenario?
Logged

Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play

Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot.
Scoop20906
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 937


You can't ignore me!!


View Profile
« Reply #131 on: December 22, 2005, 09:09:31 PM »

More fun with presidential lying:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html#

President George W. Bush, 2004:
"[T]here are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
Logged

The Gone Gold Effect has a strong influence on the weak minded ...
GamerTag: Scoop20906
GGMark
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


View Profile
« Reply #132 on: December 22, 2005, 11:17:52 PM »

I dont have anyting to hide from the Government.  I still dont want them listening in on me.  Once they can do that without my, or a judges consent.  Whats to stop them from taking the next step and claiming that I have something to hide from them, and hauling me into court.  People would say this is a large leap in thinking.  Who would have thought though, that our government, when we catch them breaking our amendment rights, would just turn to us and tell us that they will continue to do so.

When a government no longer has to follow the laws put in place, and it no longer will abide by the peoples will, it is no longer a democracy.

If you want to tell me then that our government is in for a change, to no longer be a democracy.  Then maybe we need to stop forcing our 'democracy' on Dictators, Communists, and Socialists.  becuase we are no longer a democracy.

I think that if this government were to stop being a democracy, i would really move.  While other countries might not be as well off as we are here.  they get by.  Which is what I do here most of the time.  Get by.

The people in canada voted no confidence in thier Parliament system.  Booting everyone out.  Sort of impeaching everyone.  Now they get to do it again.  Could this be a bad thing.  Sure.  So could being tricked into voting for a president who turns out to be a crook.  Nixon.  you take your chances.  When you loose the ability to challenge your government on the way it makes its laws and the way it uses them.  Then its a problem.

This wire tapping, really goes beyond Bush.  I think its really a culmination of years of corrupt officials.  Kwame won again in detroit.  Did he fool the people there?  Or did he cheat?  Who knows.  

I think whats happened with Bush is that hes just not as subtle as the others have been, and not as patient to make it a slow change.  Sneaking it by. They made a huge stink about the Dems not approiving a military spending bill.  but when it changed houses, they atteched a addendum about drilling in Alaska, which had been shot down before.  

Either way.  I dont want people or my government free reign over the things I do in my personal life.  If they want permission from me.  Ask.  I would prolly let them look at a lot of things.  Maybe not all.  When you take without asking, even if its just what someone was willing to give.  Its much more of a violation, than having that person give.

Say you have some lunch at work, and someone is without.  Wouldn;t you rather they ask if they might have a piece, rather than they just take it?  You might even be willing to give them more, than they would have just taken from you.
Logged
lokiju
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 533



View Profile
« Reply #133 on: December 23, 2005, 12:54:06 AM »

Quote from: "GGMark"
This wire tapping, really goes beyond Bush.  I think its really a culmination of years of corrupt officials.  Kwame won again in detroit.  Did he fool the people there?  Or did he cheat?  Who knows.  

I think whats happened with Bush is that hes just not as subtle as the others have been, and not as patient to make it a slow change.  Sneaking it by. They made a huge stink about the Dems not approiving a military spending bill.  but when it changed houses, they atteched a addendum about drilling in Alaska, which had been shot down before.


I think this sums it up nicely.  All presidents and their staff break the law.  It's been going on since the beginning, and it won't change.  Bush is just the stupidest president we've had in a long time, and I fully believe his own team can't believe how many mistakes he's made in public.  He's set the republicans back a bit, no doubt.  His daddy must be proud.

Edit: Bush went to Yale down the street from me.  Oh the stories I have heard.  He technically 'failed out' with C's, but the policy there is to not give grades below that for posture.  Everyone comments about how mentally retarded he was.
Logged

Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play

Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot.
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #134 on: December 23, 2005, 03:04:43 AM »

I recall a quote from a while back.  In an interview with a former classmate of GWB, it was commented how amazing it was to see someone who had been held in such low esteem become president of the country.
Logged
Harpua3
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2563


View Profile
« Reply #135 on: December 23, 2005, 08:41:26 AM »

Wow, I`m suprised by some of these comments. I`ve been watching the news alot recently (as always). Well, I`d rather have this going on than terrorists attacking us non-stop. I was suprised by all the CRAZY comments on this here and on the news... If the government didn`t do enough ( well, we still don`t really), people would freak out. Whatever someone does, the opposite action is always better... :roll:
Logged
Scoop20906
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 937


You can't ignore me!!


View Profile
« Reply #136 on: December 23, 2005, 03:48:33 PM »

Quote from: "Harpua3"
Wow, I`m suprised by some of these comments. I`ve been watching the news alot recently (as always). Well, I`d rather have this going on than terrorists attacking us non-stop. I was suprised by all the CRAZY comments on this here and on the news... If the government didn`t do enough ( well, we still don`t really), people would freak out. Whatever someone does, the opposite action is always better... :roll:

Harpua3, I think the point I am trying to make (can't speak for anyone else) is that I don't trust President Bush.

Also, I feel that the laws in place are sufficient for the authorities to do their jobs. They just have to do their jobs better. The government did have evidence prior to the 9/11 attack of what was going on but just didn't connect the dots. They just weren't looking for that type of attack or as President Bush put it to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, "tired of swatting flies". I think with the proper emphasis our government can do a better job with exisiting laws.

What I am VERY concerned about is an erosion of civil liberties. Surveillance without cause (without a court ordered warrant) should be illegal. A government that can investigate anyone without probable cause (i.e. illegal activity) WILL abuse that power. It has been show consistently in the past. Without the checks and balances set out in the Constitution, how free do you think we really would be?

A blank check to any president is a dangerous thing!!

Yes, I want the government to do everything they can, but the laws in place are adequate. Or, maybe you can explain to me how they are not? I am willing to hear them.
Logged

The Gone Gold Effect has a strong influence on the weak minded ...
GamerTag: Scoop20906
GGMark
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


View Profile
« Reply #137 on: December 23, 2005, 04:09:55 PM »

I said previously, that the government needs to protect.  We have laws in place for that.

You and I are expected to follow these laws, when we dont, we are punished by our government.  If the government breaks the laws, who is there to punish them?

If you read around, news sources, books, and such.  You will see that almost every agency in the US, and aboard had evidence of an impending attack.  Or the people who were involved.  Using the tools they had at thier disposal then.

But becuase each agency doesnt trust the other one with information.  The picture was not put together.  Now if each agency in our government cant trust each other with information, what makes you think, that you should be willing to let the government in on everything you do?

Say your sitting around on the phone, talking to a buddy of yours.  Say its about this thread right here.  You are telling your buddy about how people say they dont like president bush, and his ideas.  The government is listening in.  Without a warrant, they could then possibly take your acts to be terrorist plans in the works, and show up at your, or our doorstep.

Whereas if they had to present a judge with a warrant and say, looks at what these guys were talking about on the phone.  Someone who's supposed to be fair and impartial looks at said phone records, and determines wether or not the government has the right to show up at your house for that.

There are many countries where just saying something about your government is against the law.  The police can show up at your house, walk in and arrest you.  no warrant.  Brazil is a good example.  The Nazis  had a similar program during WWII.  The SS would show up at someones house and just take them away.  in Russia, you have no rights of protection from the police.  They can pull you over on the spot whenever they like.  Search you, your car, whatever.

by doing these things.  Illegal wire tapping, and other things, not just that.  We are becoming no better than the countries that we stood against in the past, and stand against now.  

We are a large Hypocracy where we say that China is bad for treating its people in such a manner, then turn around and do the same ro our own people.

You know who plans to appoint the next Dalai Lama?  The Chinese Government.  They are claiming that the Buddhists in Tibet dont have the correct lama already.  THey are grooming the people of tibet and china for the day the current one dies.  

I suppose thats fine when you live in a communist government.  We don't.  We live in a democracy with elected officials, who are expected to follow the rules that we have in place for them, and we are expected to follow the rules they have in place for us.

i think my analogy is pretty close.  I dont have anyting to hide from the government, if you come to me and ask for something, or information, or the ability to check on me.  I would prolly let you have that.  When you just take from me its different.  You are violating my rights, and my person by doing this.  I would be willing to give the government half of my sandwich for lunch, when they dont have any.  When they take a couple bites of mine, and a couple bites from other people, and chips and crackers from my friends without asking.  It makes me angry.
Logged
lokiju
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 533



View Profile
« Reply #138 on: December 24, 2005, 02:33:35 AM »

Logged

Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play

Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot.
Harpua3
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2563


View Profile
« Reply #139 on: December 24, 2005, 07:17:05 AM »

I see your guys points, but...I still disagree. To each his/her own. I`m not a bush fan, but I think there are reasons for certain things, and I see a good reason for this. That`s all I guess.
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1568


View Profile
« Reply #140 on: December 24, 2005, 07:33:11 AM »

Quote from: "Harpua3"
I see your guys points, but...I still disagree. To each his/her own. I`m not a bush fan, but I think there are reasons for certain things, and I see a good reason for this. That`s all I guess.


the other thing to keep in mind is the 1st amendment too. What is  the effect of all this gov't spying on free speech?   Do you really feel comfortable saying what you believe about the gov't if  someone is listening?
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
lokiju
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 533



View Profile
« Reply #141 on: December 24, 2005, 09:26:23 AM »

Well, Bush says free speech is outdated, and helps terrorists.  Do we really want to lose free speech?  He wants a law forbidding newspapers from sharing government info they learn, much like this recent wiretapping issue.
Logged

Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play

Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.179 seconds with 69 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.067s, 4q)