Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Sure thing ... they have the time and energy to wiretap but were too lazy to read the August, 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing and stop 9/11 dead in it's tracks.

I'm glad you brought that up. During the Dick Clark era of the war opposition, the word was that the new administration didn't do enough. Now they're criminal if they tap terror suspects' phones. It's obvious to everyone that no matter what they do, you'll criticize it. Obvious.

They can wiretap all they want and it doesn't undo ignoring the 8/6/01 PDB.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch. There is no spinning that fact.

Start a new thread.

Originally posted by Brooks
2. I think the wiretaps MAY have prevented a nuclear holocaust and the end of mankind. There, my MAY is bigger than his may.

You keep turning this into being opposed to wiretaps. I am absolutely not opposed to wiretaps. I am opposed to wiretaps, on U.S. citizens, without search warrants being issued. It's as simple as that.

You're doing a heck of a job avoiding the search warrant issue, by the way.

Originally posted by Brooks
1. Recruitment and morale are affected by the same factors. If one goes up, so then does the other.What makes you think that a terrorist, whose world-view is constructed upon absolute hatred of America -- to the point of suicide -- will somehow be emboldened or disheartened by any domestic political event of ours? IOW, do you really think that someone who is willing to kill himself in order to kill either you or me gives a crap that we disagree with each other?

'Morale' is probably the wrong word to use here anyway. It implies something that is subject to change. Pure, soul-consuming hatred does not change from one day to the next, if ever.2. I think the wiretaps MAY have prevented a nuclear holocaust and the end of mankind. There, my MAY is bigger than his may.His 'may' is plausible. Yours isn't.3. If it was that clearly illegal, the Dems wouldn't be taking ANY risk in saying so. So the wiretaps are legal because Democrats are cowards? What kind of logic is that?!

Originally posted by sedan
1. His 'may' is plausible. Yours isn't.So the wiretaps are legal because Democrats are cowards?

2. What kind of logic is that?!
1. The point I was trying to make is that it's still pure speculation. Don't use it against me in an argument.

2. They're NOT cowards when going after this administration. If they had a chance of nailing him on illegality, they'd be on it yesterday.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
You keep turning this into being opposed to wiretaps. I am absolutely not opposed to wiretaps. I am opposed to wiretaps, on U.S. citizens, without search warrants being issued. It's as simple as that.

You're doing a heck of a job avoiding the search warrant issue, by the way.

You're not the only one here. I was probably addressing something like this:

"There is nothing congress can do to stop the spying. Bush and Cheney and Gonzales have already stated unequivically that Bush is above the laws of the country,"

(I know this answer greatly resembles something on the other thread, but so did your question)

Recruitment and morale are affected by the same factors. If one goes up, so then does the other. Hmm lets see...

"The US wont wiretap US citizens illegally, Ill think Ill go on a jihad"

or

"Those pig bastards murdered my whole family with cluster bombs, I'm going on Jihad"

Yeah the first one is makes much more sense. Thanks for clearing that up genius...

You're not the only one here. I was probably addressing something like this Yet more avoidence made to look like hes addressing something. Why can't you answer a simple question Brooks? Oh wait I know, Because its indefensible.

Guess what else is in the other thread:"Secondly, there 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." Bush himself saying that he doesn't give a fuck about laws or the constitution. defend that...

Guerilla, You can try and make it sound ridiculous with your exaggerations if you wish, but if this country, and the rest of the world, showed a total commitment to rooting out terrorism suspects, the recruitment would be much more difficult. Common sense.

If on the other hand, we are squabbling about (gasp) listening to conversations, they know that in this country politics comes before this total commitment.

PS - and all the wiretaps in the world don't add one more cluster bomb into the mix. May even help to avoid that option.

Originally posted by Brooks
Guerilla, You can try and make it sound ridiculous with your exaggerations if you wish, but if this country, and the rest of the world, showed a total commitment to rooting out terrorism suspects, the recruitment would be much more difficult. Common sense.

With regard to the Constitution, where do you draw the line with "total commitment?"

Originally posted by LionelHutz
With regard to the Constitution, where do you draw the line with "total commitment?"
It's a hard thing to define. It's probably easier for me to ask you if you think we have a total commitment now.

I don't mean to stretch the constitution with the "total commitment". To me it means politicians who still believe in what they voted for even when the polls go down; citizens who still believe in something even though it took longer than 3 months; a media that equally reports the good with the bad; other countries that don't reverse their decisions when it becomes unpopular, etc.

Originally posted by Brooks
It's a hard thing to define. It's probably easier for me to ask you if you think we have a total commitment now.

No, not really. But I don't think it's so much of a lack of commitment to smoking out terrorists as much as it's a lack of commitment to the financial and human costs that a war on terrorism brings.

Originally posted by Brooks
I don't mean to stretch the constitution with the "total commitment".

Ah, I see.

I don't mean to stretch the constitution with the "total commitment". Then why are you advocating Bush violating the constitution to spy on terriers? That seems to be exactly what you are doing...


"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom."
— Dwight Eisenhower

Guerilla, You can try and make it sound ridiculous with your exaggerations if you wish, but if this country, and the rest of the world, showed a total commitment to rooting out terrorism suspects, the recruitment would be much more difficult. (now I'm not comparing any coutry to any other coutry with this and I don't want you to get your panties in a bunch but) I bet it was pretty hard in Nazi Germany too...

BTW while were talking about "our security" how about another complete and utter failure in security but great for domestic surveilence of free speech activities...

Homeland Security accused of dereliction
WASHINGTON - The Homeland Security Department, created in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, has failed to fulfill 33 of its own pledges to better protect the nation, according to a report released Tuesday by House Democrats.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10620240/from/RL.3/

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Then why are you advocating Bush violating the constitution to spy on terriers?


Woof, woof.

Originally posted by Brooks
Woof, woof. Pretty good, LOL.

Originally posted by slim
Another covert operation disclosed. To me this is almost more troubling than any news story out there. Somebody is leaking this stuff to directly undermine our country. Who is it ...??

[
Slim

Undermine our country? How? Do you think Al Qaida don't know the communication are under surveillance? Even ordinary US citizens think they are spied by their own government.

371. The revenge of D.O.J. (1/7/06)

Bush is only a puppet. When his illegal activity was revealed, his master jumped out to protect. Instead of investigating Bush's unconstitutional action, Justice Department starts to probe the leak of spying program.

It seems they assume nobody knows that US government is eavesdropping on its citizens. As a matter of fact, it's a common sense that FBI and other intelligence are spying on us in a broad range. We know there are Carnivore, Echelon..... There are so many information about secret eavesdropping. Have you ever seen the investigation from D.O.J.? The money spent on secret spying is huge. Are these enormous organization only deal with a few Al Qaide? It's a joke to think that Al Qaida won't alert that they may under surveillance if they communicate with an electronic system. Even innocent Muslim and non Muslim Americans would think their communication be intercepted by big brother.

What the leak of spying program will hurt? It only proves the long existing suspicion of secret spying is true. That Bush did something illegal.(unconstitutional).

The following is an information known by public. The time is Jan. 1st 2001. Such kind of knowledge was common sense. Similar information were popular in internet then. But it didn't point to Bush and D.O.J.. So nothing happened. Now D.O.J. jump their feet on the leak of "secret spying". Is that funny?

Re: SPYING ON US
BY JIM WILSON
Illustration by Paul DiMare
Published on: January 1, 2001

The secret is out. Two powerful intelligence gathering tools that the United States created to eavesdrop on Soviet leaders and to track KGB spies are now being used to monitor Americans. One system, known as Echelon, intercepts and analyzes telephone calls, faxes and e-mail sent to and from the United States. The other system, Tempest, can secretly read the displays on personal computers, cash registers and automatic teller machines, from as far as a half mile away. Although the inner workings of both systems remain classified, fueling exaggerated claims about their capabilities on Internet sites, credible detail has at last begun to emerge. It comes chiefly from foreign governments that began investigating American surveillance activities after discovering that the Echelon system had been used to spy on their defense contractors. From those documents it is possible to obtain the first accurate view of the threats high-tech spying poses to our right to privacy. We think you will agree it also creates a real and present threat to our freedom.

http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/1/spying_on_us/

Secret spying is known by much people, let alone terrorists. The leaking only proves this government is doing something illegal. That's why someone jumps on their feet saying it undermine our country. A tactic used to be done by Bush to label others "help enemy, unpatriot" while they themselves are the terrorist.

We cannot let terriers and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile.
-- Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000

372. Justice Department to probe Leak on Spying Program

There are two kinds of leaking.

1. The leak was done by Feds itself to revenge at their dislikes. Such like "Watergate"case. President Nixon intended to reform D.O.J.. Then there was a deep throat to leak a scandal. Nixon had to resign the job. D.O.J. never did an investigation because it was done by itself. An FBI agent.

Or the Plame's case. D.O.J. never did an active investigation on it. Because the person likely is a member of Bush's administration.

Re: Nixon's case: (the references are two articles I have posted before. I re-post for your convenience.)

295. Who controls D.O.J.? (3/7/05)

Former President Kennedy was assassinated. Former President Clinton was impeached. All these revealed that even in top position, US politicians are under the control of intelligence. They were under the surveillance. They were extorted, blackmailed by intelligence. If they disobeyed, then they were punished by scandal, or even been assassinated.

Former President Nixon was almost impeached. He lost his post in oval office in early 70's. The formal reason was he lied to cover up a tape which might reveal his awareness of illegal campaign activity. But lie and dirty campaign activity were common among high ranking politicians. It was only an excuse. Then what was the real purpose?

In March 2002, a news helped me resolved several puzzles. It was a tape of Nixon's conversation with former treasury secretary Connally.

Re:
Quote, "Nixon Defended Envoy's Groping
1972 Tapes Also Reveal Talk of a Justice Dept. 'Full of Jews'
By George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 1, 2002; Page A02

"Oh! Oh, God!" Nixon said with a sigh. "It erodes our confidence, our strength. They're untrustworthy. . . . Look at the Justice Department, it's full of Jews."
"Any place of power," Connally agreed. "SEC used to be -- all of them, those lawyers."
"Listen, the lawyers in government are damn Jews," Nixon said.

Both men agreed that Nixon should try to reduce the Jewish influence in a second term. Nixon told Connally on May 15 that he wanted no more than 2 percent of the government's political appointees to be Jewish, in proportion to the population. He later said 10 percent would be acceptable, "but certainly not 30 or 40 percent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20361-2002Feb28.html

I then knew who control Justice department and why Nixon lost his job.
Nixon realized that there was a disproportion of government political appointees to the population. He thought it was not for the interest of US and tried to change that situation. He faced an impeach and had to resign before he could do it.

Now I know why Sharon said, "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, to Shimon Peres, October 8th, 2001

Israel controls D.O.J.. D.O.J. controls FBI. And FBI keep Americans under surveillance, include Presidents.

2. If the leak was done to reveal the scandal of Feds or Bush administration. Then they did an active job to revenge at the purpose to silence it. Justice Department to probe Leak on Spying Program belongs to this one. It's an intimidation on lawmakers to pass the Patriot Act because it will terminated in five weeks.

Re:
89. Polygraph law makers (9/25/02)

In early June, a news said the conversations between Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta were intercepted by NSA. It said in two separate conversations on Sept. 10, 2001 contained the phrases "Tomorrow is zero hour" and "The match is about to begin.". Since these two phrases are vague one and consider NSA intercepts 2 million conversations in each hour, the pick up of these two phrases was not a coincidence. It proves that Atta was under surveillance by government earlier before 911.

Then FBI said it was a secret intelligence information which shouldn't be let out public. They are investigating who has leaked it. They target on law makers and even request a polygraph.

But who will investigate the secret information leaking committed by intelligence itself?

When the news said Atta made contact to Iraq diplomat in Czech and talked about bombing plot, it revealed that Atta and Iraq diplomat were under surveillance and it revealed the Czech intelligence was cooperated with USA.

There was another similar news release. By February 2001, NSA had broken the bin Laden's communications encryption system. What we know from the information government released is that OBL talked to his mother two days before 911 attack, "In two days, you're going to hear big news, and you're not going to hear from me for a while." It let people know that Bin laden's communication was under surveillance as long as 6 months before 911. And his communication code was broken.

Nobody could release such information but intelligence. Though the original purpose of news about Atta and Iraq diplomat was to target on Iraq to frame it linking with 911 terrorist, so administration could have excuse to start a war with Iraq. And the news of Bin Laden's intercepted conversation was used as a legal base for Bush to start war in Afghan. These leaking are as important as the Atta's "Tomorrow is zero huor" one. Why FBI had a blind eye on these leaking? Because they were released by intelligence?

The secret information leaking FBI accused of took place in early June, at a time when lawmakers and 911 victims were going to investigate failure of intelligence of 911 attack with an independent commission. It could be a trap set up by intelligence. They use this method to retaliate, or extort law makers to avoid investigation on their own flaw or crime. Or try to reach a compromise.

If we don't know these "secrecy", we will believe what government said that they had known nothing before 911 attack. "Secret" is only a stonewall they used to cover up their corruption.