Bush refuses to answer questions about spying on Americans....

Quote from hapaboy:

You may consider the fact that so many Americans do not think it is necessary to monitor communications among terrorist organizations that wish to kill more of their countrymen as "meaningless."
More...
Some may believe that the FBI not the NSA should be doing the wiretapping when US citizens are concerned, does it make them unamerican? Others familiar with the scandal perhaps assumed that the poll did implicitly reflect the actual controversy and answered "No" meaning "No warrantless spying". I am guessing of course but as I said the questions were so poorly phrased that the poll is totally useless.

BTW Your accusations of partizanship are absurd, I am not a democrat, I am more progressive than most democrats on economic issues, I am way more conservative on social issues and I am an isolationist on international issues. You on the other side would support Bush if he ate a baby on live tv calling it an innovative nutritional program (or a matter of national security and part of the war on terror).
 
Quote from hapaboy:

I assume it's possible, RM.

I'm sure you have some examples of people who have been labeled "terrorism suspects" by the government but weren't actually under suspicion of terrorist activities, so please enlighten me on this.
More...


Didn't you see the TV commercials?

How about this?

Here's A more detailed article on the vast misuse of the Patriot act (could they pick a more Orwellian name?) provisions.
 
Quote from dddooo:

Some may believe that the FBI not the NSA should be doing the wiretapping when US citizens are concerned, does it make them unamerican? Others familiar with the scandal perhaps assumed that the poll did implicitly reflect the actual controversy and answered "No" meaning "No warrantless spying". I am guessing of course but as I said the questions were so poorly phrased that the poll is totally useless.
More...
Correct me if I'm wrong, dddooo, perhaps you're the expert on this topic, but since when does the FBI do foreign communications intercepts? That's the NSA's job.

Now, I've asked you this before - is it your contention that when the NSA is monitoring Al Qaeda communications overseas and they make a call to the US, the NSA should just turn off the equipment because one part of the call is now in the US and HOPE the FBI picks that conversation up?

Didn't 9/11 teach us the folly of these walls that exist between government agencies? The same walls the Patriot Act tore down but the Dims are hell-bent on rebuilding? Shouldn't the overriding factor here be the security of this country and which agency is best equipped to monitor these communications?

BTW Your accusations of partizanship are absurd, I am not a democrat, I am more progressive than most democrats on economic issues, I am way more conservative on social issues and I am an isolationist on international issues. You on the other side would support Bush if he ate a baby on live tv calling it an innovative nutritional program (or a matter of national security and part of the war on terror).
More...
Utter bullshit.

I've stated many times that I would support a Democrat doing what Bush is doing, and have castigated Bush for his border and immigration policies.

I've never read anything of yours that would indicate that you're anything but a partisan hack.
 
Quote from Rearden Metal:

Didn't you see the TV commercials?
More...
Yes, I did see parts of those commercials, as a matter of fact. The key statement of this article seems to be:

"About half of the 28 organizations identified as terrorist by the State Department are financed by sales of illegal drugs, according to the drug office." If you have evidence that this is not the case, and that the proceeds from the sales of illegal narcotics don't go into the hands of terrorist organizations, you may have a point.

How about this?
More...
I don't see what your point is here at all.

The article states that the provisos of the Patriot Act have given law enforcement broader powers, and that all 15 of the culprits were charged with "one count of bulk-cash smuggling. Nine others were charged earlier with international money laundering and marijuana trafficking under a separate law. " It doesn't say they were tagged as terrorism suspects.

Here's A more detailed article on the vast misuse of the Patriot act (could they pick a more Orwellian name?) provisions.
More...
Well, since it comes from the Nation, I suppose it must be true. :)

The article makes some sound points, if it is to be believed, but is vague and speculative on others.

Overall, though, I don't see the government using the Patriot Act as an excuse to run roughshod over our civil liberties. I do see it as broadening enforcement powers and penalties on non-terrorism related crimes, but as a law-abider I don't see any harm in that.
 
Quote from Pabst:

If Nixon had been eavesdropping on the Viet Cong instead of domestic political enemies it would have been legal. Is there any evidence of Bush spying extending from terrorists to American newspaper editors?
More...

Actually I think there is - against journalists - and I'll find it for you. I believe it was a CIA operation called Firstfruits.

Could be nothing to it - like Verizon having me down as a potentially dangerous customer. :p
 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5709342

Pulled it off a liberal rag. As a commentator points out, so far it's just that McFadden or whatever his name is doing the reporting. He has a thing with the NSA and a book about it to boot. It will be more interesting if Gertz or Hersh speaks up. Those two are not screechers - especially when it comes to 9/11. For awhile there right after the attack, Hersh had his New Yorker readers, including me, ready to join death squads because the Bushies were so inept and slow to respond.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top