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 ...??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901585_pf.html

Covert CIA Program Withstands New Furor
By: Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 30, 2005

The effort President Bush authorized shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to fight al Qaeda has grown into the largest CIA covert action program since the height of the Cold War, expanding in size and ambition despite a growing outcry at home and abroad over its clandestine tactics, according to former and current intelligence officials and congressional and administration sources.

The broad-based effort, known within the agency by the initials GST, is compartmentalized into dozens of highly classified individual programs, details of which are known mainly to those directly involved.

GST includes programs allowing the CIA to capture al Qaeda suspects with help from foreign intelligence services, to maintain secret prisons abroad, to use interrogation techniques that some lawyers say violate international treaties, and to maintain a fleet of aircraft to move detainees around the globe. Other compartments within GST give the CIA enhanced ability to mine international financial records and eavesdrop on suspects anywhere in the world.

Over the past two years, as aspects of this umbrella effort have burst into public view, the revelations have prompted protests and official investigations in countries that work with the United States, as well as condemnation by international human rights activists and criticism by members of Congress.

Still, virtually all the programs continue to operate largely as they were set up, according to current and former officials. These sources say Bush's personal commitment to maintaining the GST program and his belief in its legality have been key to resisting any pressure to change course.

"In the past, presidents set up buffers to distance themselves from covert action," said A. John Radsan, assistant general counsel at the CIA from 2002 to 2004. "But this president, who is breaking down the boundaries between covert action and conventional war, seems to relish the secret findings and the dirty details of operations."

The administration's decisions to rely on a small circle of lawyers for legal interpretations that justify the CIA's covert programs and not to consult widely with Congress on them have also helped insulate the efforts from the growing furor, said several sources who have been involved.

Bush has never publicly confirmed the existence of a covert program, but he was recently forced to defend the approach in general terms, citing his wartime responsibilities to protect the nation. In November, responding to questions about the CIA's clandestine prisons, he said the nation must defend against an enemy that "lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again."

This month he went into more detail, defending the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping within the United States. That program is separate from the GST program, but three lawyers involved said the legal rationale for the NSA program is essentially the same one used to support GST, which is an abbreviation of a classified code name for the umbrella covert action program.

The administration contends it is still acting in self-defense after the Sept. 11 attacks, that the battlefield is worldwide, and that everything it has approved is consistent with the demands made by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, when it passed a resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks."

"Everything is done in the name of self-defense, so they can do anything because nothing is forbidden in the war powers act," said one official who was briefed on the CIA's original cover program and who is skeptical of its legal underpinnings. "It's an amazing legal justification that allows them to do anything," said the official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issues.

The interpretation undergirds the administration's determination not to waver under public protests or the threat of legislative action. For example, after The Washington Post disclosed the existence of secret prisons in several Eastern European democracies, the CIA closed them down because of an uproar in Europe. But the detainees were moved elsewhere to similar CIA prisons, referred to as "black sites" in classified documents.

The CIA has stuck with its overall approaches, defending and in some cases refining them. The agency is working to establish procedures in the event a prisoner dies in custody. One proposal circulating among mid-level officers calls for rushing in a CIA pathologist to perform an autopsy and then quickly burning the body, according to two sources.

In June, the CIA temporarily suspended its interrogation program after a controversy over the disclosure of an Aug. 1, 2002, memorandum from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that defined torture in an unconventional way. The White House withdrew and replaced the memo. But the hold on the CIA's interrogation activities was eventually removed, several intelligence officials said.

The authorized techniques include "waterboarding" and "water dousing," both meant to make prisoners think they are drowning; hard slapping; isolation; sleep deprivation; liquid diets; and stress positions -- often used, intelligence officials say, in combination to enhance the effect.

Behind the scenes, CIA Director Porter J. Goss -- until last year the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee -- has gathered ammunition to defend the program.

After a CIA inspector general's report in the spring of 2004 stated that some authorized interrogation techniques violated international law, Goss asked two national security experts to study the program's effectiveness.

Gardner Peckham, an adviser to then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), concluded that the interrogation techniques had been effective, said an intelligence official familiar with the result. John J. Hamre, deputy defense secretary under President Bill Clinton, offered a more ambiguous conclusion. Both declined to comment.

The only apparent roadblock that could yet prompt significant change in the CIA's approach is a law passed this month prohibiting torture and cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody, including in CIA hands.

It is still unclear how the law, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), will be implemented. But two intelligence experts said the CIA will be required to draw up clear guidelines and to get all special interrogation techniques approved by a wider range of government lawyers who hold a more conventional interpretation of international treaty obligations.

"The executive branch will not pull back unless it has to," said a former Justice Department lawyer involved in the initial discussions on executive power. "Because if it pulls back unilaterally and another attack occurs, it will get blamed."

The Origins

The top-secret presidential finding Bush signed six days after the Sept. 11 attacks empowered the intelligence agencies in a way not seen since World War II, and it ordered them to create what would become the GST program.

Written findings are required by the National Security Act of 1947 before the CIA can undertake a covert action. A covert action may not violate the Constitution or any U.S. law. But such actions can, and often do, violate laws of the foreign countries in which they take place, said intelligence experts.

The CIA faced the day after the 2001 attacks with few al Qaeda informants, a tiny paramilitary division and no interrogators, much less a system for transporting terrorism suspects and keeping them hidden for interrogation.

Besides fighting the war in Afghanistan, the agency set about to put in place an intelligence-gathering network that relies heavily on foreign security services and their deeper knowledge of local terrorist groups. With billions of dollars appropriated each year by Congress, the CIA has established joint counterterrorism intelligence centers in more than two dozen countries, and it has enlisted at least eight countries, including several in Eastern Europe, to allow secret prisons on their soil.

Working behind the scenes, the CIA has gained approval from foreign governments to whisk terrorism suspects off the streets or out of police custody into a clandestine prison system that includes the CIA's black sites and facilities run by intelligence agencies in other countries.

The presidential finding also permitted the CIA to create paramilitary teams to hunt and kill designated individuals anywhere in the world, according to a dozen current and former intelligence officials and congressional and executive branch sources.

In four years, the GST has become larger than the CIA's covert action programs in Afghanistan and Central America in the 1980s, according to current and former intelligence officials. Indeed, the CIA, working with foreign counterparts, has been responsible for virtually all of the success the United States has had in capturing or killing al Qaeda leaders since Sept. 11, 2001.

Bush delegated much of the day-to-day decision-making and the creation of individual components to then-CIA Director George J. Tenet, according to congressional and intelligence officials who were briefed on the finding at the time.

"George could decide, even on killings," one of these officials said, referring to Tenet. "That was pushed down to him. George had the authority on who was going to get it."

The Lawyers

Tenet, according to half a dozen former intelligence officials, delegated most of the decision making on lethal action to the CIA's Counterterrorist Center. Killing an al Qaeda leader with a Hellfire missile fired from a remote-controlled drone might have been considered assassination in a prior era and therefore banned by law.

But after Sept. 11, four former government lawyers said, it was classified as an act of self-defense and therefore was not an assassination. "If it was an al Qaeda person, it wouldn't be an assassination," said one lawyer involved.

This month, Pakistani intelligence sources said, Hamza Rabia, a top operational planner for al Qaeda, was killed along with four others by a missile fired by U.S. operatives using an unmanned Predator drone, although there were conflicting reports on whether a missile was used. In May, another al Qaeda member, Haitham Yemeni, was reported killed by a Predator drone missile in northwest Pakistan.

Refining what constitutes an assassination was just one of many legal interpretations made by Bush administration lawyers. Time and again, the administration asked government lawyers to draw up new rules and reinterpret old ones to approve activities once banned or discouraged under the congressional reforms beginning in the 1970s, according to these officials and seven lawyers who once worked on these matters.

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, has described the administration's philosophy in public and private meetings, including a session with human rights groups.

"We're going to live on the edge," Hayden told the groups, according to notes taken by Human Rights Watch and confirmed by Hayden's office. "My spikes will have chalk on them. . . . We're pretty aggressive within the law. As a professional, I'm troubled if I'm not using the full authority allowed by law."

Not stopping another attack not only will be a professional failure, he argued, but also "will move the line" again on acceptable legal limits to counterterrorism.

When the CIA wanted new rules for interrogating important terrorism suspects the White House gave the task to a small group of lawyers within the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel who believed in an aggressive interpretation of presidential power.

The White House tightened the circle of participants involved in these most sensitive new areas. It initially cut out the State Department's general counsel, most of the judge advocates general of the military services and the Justice Department's criminal division, which traditionally dealt with international terrorism.

"The Bush administration did not seek a broad debate on whether commander-in-chief powers can trump international conventions and domestic statutes in our struggle against terrorism," said Radsan, the former CIA lawyer, who is a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minn. "They could have separated the big question from classified details to operations and had an open debate. Instead, an inner circle of lawyers and advisers worked around the dissenters in the administration and one-upped each other with extreme arguments."

At the CIA, the White House allowed the general counsel's job, traditionally filled from outside the CIA by someone who functioned in a sort of oversight role, to be held by John Rizzo, a career CIA lawyer with a fondness for flashy suits and ties who worked for years in the Directorate of Operations, or D.O.

"John Rizzo is a classic D.O. lawyer. He understands the culture, the intelligence business," Radsan said. "He admires the case officers. And they trust him to work out tough issues in the gray with them. He is like a corporate lawyer who knows how to make the deal happen."

These lawyers have written legal justifications for holding suspects picked up outside Afghanistan without a court order, without granting traditional legal rights and without giving them access to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

CIA and Office of Legal Counsel lawyers also determined that it was legal for suspects to be secretly detained in one country and transferred to another for the purposes of interrogation and detention -- a process known as "rendition."

Lawyers involved in the decision making acknowledge the uncharted nature of their work. "I did what I thought the best reading of the law was," one lawyer said. "These lines are not obvious. It was a judgment."
Credit and Blame

One way the White House limited debate over its program was to virtually shut out Congress during the early years. Congress, for its part, raised only weak and sporadic protests. The administration sometimes refused to give the committees charged with overseeing intelligence agencies the details they requested. It also cut the number of members of Congress routinely briefed on these matters, usually to four members -- the chairmen and ranking Democratic members of the House and Senate intelligence panels.

John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), ranking Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, complained in a 2003 letter to Vice President Cheney that his briefing on the NSA eavesdropping was unsatisfactory. "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," he wrote.

Rockefeller made similar complaints about the CIA's refusal to allow the full committee to see the backup material supporting a skeptical report by the CIA inspector general in 2004 on detentions and interrogations that questioned the legal basis for renditions.

Some former CIA officers now worry that the agency alone will be held responsible for actions authorized by Bush and approved by the White House's lawyers.

Attacking the CIA is common when covert programs are exposed and controversial, said Gerald Haines, a former CIA historian who is a scholar in residence at the University of Virginia. "It seems to me the agency is taking the brunt of all the recent criticism."

Duane R. "Dewey" Clarridge, who directed the CIA's covert efforts to support the Nicaraguan contras in the 1980s, said the nature of CIA work overseas is, and should be, risky and sometimes ugly. "You have a spy agency because the spy agency is going to break laws overseas. If you don't want it to do those dastardly things, don't have it. You can have the State Department."

But a former CIA officer said the agency "lost its way" after Sept. 11, rarely refusing or questioning an administration request. The unorthodox measures "have got to be flushed out of the system," the former officer said. "That's how it works in this country."


Slim

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 ...?? Wrong someone is leaking this stuff because BushCo. is directly trying to undermine the country.

The country is made up of the people and all the laws that they agree to abide by. Not the president and his whim to disregard such.

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 ...??Probably someone who honors the Constitution.

Can someone explain to me how this leak undermines our country? Did terrorists pick up the NYT and say 'Dang! Those guys are spying on us! We better do something quick!'?

Uhhhh... patriots????

Originally posted by slim
Another covert operation disclosed.

A cause for celebration, not dismay.

It's not as if terrorists are completely unaware that they might be targeted for surveillance.

It was a ***covert*** operation.

If the crooked motherfuckers were doing things for the "good" of the country instead of subverting the Constitution, they would not have to do it in secret.



Originally posted by slim
Somebody is leaking this stuff to directly undermine our country. Who is it ...??

Firstly, exposing wrongdoing on the part of the huge clandestine intelligence network in America [i.e., the modern day Gestapo] is the OPPOSITE of "undermining the country".

Who's doing it??

People who care about human rights, Constitutional rights and justice, i'd say.

IOW, people who are at the opposite end of the spectrum from that gigantic throng of puling Rightwing toadies in this country who are eager to bend over backwards and throw away their rights and freedoms in the interest of an infinitessimal (at best) increase in their "security" and safety.

I think you lefties .....are making assumptions.

As far as intelligence gathering operations go ........we don't know if any laws have been broken or not ......but ....what is for sure .......national intelligence leaks are detrimental to our nation .......and .............should be punished by death ......IMHO.


Slim

Originally posted by slim
what is for sure .......national intelligence leaks are detrimental to our nation .......and .............should be punished by death ......IMHO.


Slim

So, slim......I guess then will you agree to pull the switch on the electric chair for Rove, Novak and Libby......right??

Oh wait!!!....let me guess.......in THEIR case, the leak WASN'T anything we should be concerned about, and the matter should be swept under the rug and forgotten.

Right?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

The leaking might be from CIA agents who are pissed off about the leaking of Valerie Pflame's identity. What goes around, comes around.

Fitzgerald ...the special prosecutor .........himself said no laws were broken (other than perjury) in the Vallery Plame case.

But ....I guess you missed that .....*L*.


Slim

US probes eavesdropping leak

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation to determine who disclosed a secret NSA eavesdropping operation approved by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks, officials said on Friday.

"We are opening an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified materials related to the NSA," one official said.

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-12-30T154345Z_01_EIC055795_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml

Slime - youre a traitor to the country.

Originally posted by slim
Fitzgerald ...the special prosecutor .........himself said no laws were broken (other than perjury) in the Vallery Plame case.

But ....I guess you missed that .....*L*.


Slim

Sometimes there is a difference between the law and what is right. I never said that the law was broken, I said that some individuals might have been pissed off. Sometimes things can be perfectly legal, and still be very annoying, like a wrong number on the telephone while you are sleeping or someone driving five miles an hour below the speed limit in rush hour traffic on the freeway.
Outing a CIA agent to score political points against her husband who is criticizing your political policies may be legal, but that doesn't mean it was right. Revealing an embarrassing secret policy in return might well be considered just revenge. A year or two from now some special prosecutor can determine whether the law was broken.

Originally posted by slim
Fitzgerald ...the special prosecutor .........himself said no laws were broken (other than perjury) in the Vallery Plame case.

But ....I guess you missed that .....*L*.


Slim

Ummm.....what he actually said was:

A few hours ago, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia returned a five-count indictment against I. Lewis Libby, also known as Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff.

The grand jury's indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements. (emphasis mine)

I guess you must have missed that...:rolleyes:

Fitzgerald ...the special prosecutor .........himself said no laws were broken (other than perjury) in the Vallery Plame case. Righttttt, and Al capone wasn't a mobster. He just didn't pay his taxes...

slim

The leak was anti-Bush so you will never get the lefties to admit that there was anything wrong with it.

The fact that it quite possibly endangered national security is unimportant when contrasted with the possible harm it can do to Bush.

Get with the program, slim. It is all about getting Bush.

Originally posted by Frogger
The fact that it quite possibly endangered national security is unimportant when contrasted with the possible harm it can do to Bush.OK, I'll ask the question again. How does this leak endanger national security?

The program(s) were covert. That means they were secret. They are no longe secret. That gives our enemies a leg up and endangers our national security.

Originally posted by Frogger
slim

The leak was anti-Bush so you will never get the lefties to admit that there was anything wrong with it.

The fact that it quite possibly endangered national security is unimportant when contrasted with the possible harm it can do to Bush.

Get with the program, slim. It is all about getting Bush.

Now you're sounding a lot like Decka...

Originally posted by Frogger
The program(s) were covert. That means they were secret. They are no longe secret. That gives our enemies a leg up and endangers our national security. I think I know what 'covert' means. What 'leg up' does this leak give our enemies? Are they so incredibly stupid they would not know we are trying to intercept their communications? I do not see how this leak endangers our national security.

Originally posted by slim
Fitzgerald ...the special prosecutor .........himself said no laws were broken (other than perjury) in the Vallery Plame case.

But ....I guess you missed that .....*L*.

Originally posted by Imagineer
Sometimes there is a difference between the law and what is right.......Sometimes things can be perfectly legal, and still be very annoying,

Please do not give in to slim and argue this from the point that he was correct in his assertion that Fitzgerald said "no laws were broken other than perjury".

Slim (unsurprisingly) has it wrong.

As Vile pointed out, Fitzgerald is on record as having stated that Libby was charged with committing FIVE CRIMES.

"you mean they can listen to phone conversations!?!"
*slaps forehead
"holy shit!!!"
-- Osama Bin Laden

...

Gimmie a break.

Originally posted by Frogger
The program(s) were covert. That means they were secret. They are no longe secret. That gives our enemies a leg up and endangers our national security.

Yeah it gives them a big leg up -- like getting their cases dismissed because of illegal gathering of evidence.

It seems we posters see things differently. Many of you see this as some sort of game where the rules are clearly defined and if you think someone is not playing by the rules you run to the New York Times which then publishes matters dealing with national security.

I happen to belong to the camp that believes we are at war and during a war you do not divulge matters of national security.

Originally posted by Frogger
where the rules are clearly defined

The rules are clearly defined -- it's called the constitution.

Originally posted by Frogger
I happen to belong to the camp that believes we are at war and during a war you do not divulge matters of national security.

This war, its components, are different from other conflicts in our nation's past, we are not at war with a single nation or coalition of nations, but with an international affiliation of guerilla fighters motivated by religious extremist doctrines. Many nations could arbitrarily block the news media from inquiring about the military and covert operations of the government because of the matter of national security.

Whether we are "at war" in a standard sense is up for question, as is the supposed threat to national security by having the the story be broken.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
"you mean they can listen to phone conversations!?!"
*slaps forehead
"holy shit!!!"
-- Osama Bin Laden


I have to admit that's funny, but then on the other hand, he's probably slapping his forehead and saying "We're willing to kill ourselves and they won't even tap phones?"

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The rules are clearly defined -- it's called the constitution.

It's funny how compartmentalized our philosophies can become. Dropping bunkerbusters on human beings in Tora Bora is fine in war, POW camps are okay, shooting bullets into people's heads is acceptable, but we'd better not tap phones.

It's weird when you really think about it.

Originally posted by Imagineer
Sometimes there is a difference between the law and what is right.

"The law" is clearly defined while "what is right" differs from person to person. That's why sometimes the guilty walk, and why there's an ACLU.

I must have missed the part where congress declared war -- er ... make that endless war.

Originally posted by Brooks
I have to admit that's funny, but then on the other hand, he's probably slapping his forehead and saying "We're willing to kill ourselves and they won't even tap phones?"

I wouldn't expect him to get it.

Originally posted by Brooks
It's funny how compartmentalized our philosophies can become. Dropping bunkerbusters on human beings in Tora Bora is fine in war, POW camps are okay, shooting bullets into people's heads is acceptable, but we'd better not tap phones.

Of course the difference is who you're doing it to - it's one thing to do it against enemies and quite another thing to do it against citizens. And, as Dop points out, since this is an endless war, does that mean that we're giving up these rights permanently.

I've said it time and time again, I personally would rather suffer a terrorist attack every 10 years than give up my rights. Either I'm the only one that thinks that way or the only one that will say it.

Originally posted by Brooks
I have to admit that's funny, but then on the other hand, he's probably slapping his forehead and saying "We're willing to kill ourselves and they won't even tap phones?"

Originally posted by LionelHutz

I wouldn't expect him to get it.

Interesting exchange. I think it points out the difference in our core values. It would seem that the greatest sacrifice a terrorist can make is to give up their lives, and the greatest sacrifice we can make is to give up our rights...

Originally posted by Brooks
It's funny how compartmentalized our philosophies can become. Dropping bunkerbusters on human beings in Tora Bora is fine in war, POW camps are okay, shooting bullets into people's heads is acceptable, but we'd better not tap phones.

NO - dropping bunker busters on Tota Bora is not fine.

NO - POW camps are not fine.

NO- shooting bullets into people's heads is acceptable.

Where the F did you get that these things were OK?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
1. Of course the difference is who you're doing it to - it's one thing to do it against enemies and quite another thing to do it against citizens.

2. I've said it time and time again, I personally would rather suffer a terrorist attack every 10 years than give up my rights.

1. The calls that are tapped are coming in from overseas from / to suspected terrorists supporters.

2. You have the luxury to speak in the abstract. I'm a cop living next to NYC and you live in Akron. It's like when people on this site say "I don't support what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Deep down, I have a feeling they don't think it will come to that. Just a hunch. (And to couch the argument as "give up my rights" is an exaggeration. In my opinion).

Originally posted by LionelHutz

Of course the difference is who you're doing it to - it's one thing to do it against enemies and quite another thing to do it against citizens.

Lionel, you are making it seem that phone conversations were just listened to at random. The phone calls were from 'bad guys' to 'bad guys'. Not allowing the intelligence community to monitor the calls of suspected terrorists places the nation at grave danger.

Interesting exchange. I think it points out the difference in our core values. It would seem that the greatest sacrifice a terrorist can make is to give up their lives, and the greatest sacrifice we can make is to give up our rights...

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."
Emiliano Zapata

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."

If a nude Jessica Alba is standing in front of me I prefer living on my knees.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
NO - dropping bunker busters on Tota Bora is not fine.

What if it was filled with a band of guerilla fighters aligned with a brutal regime or terrorist organization that is in an active conflict with our nation?

Would you rather have an excursion of American soldiers raid that bunker, despite our knowledge of what is inside, risking their lives unnecessarily in a violent and lethal operation?

Would you prefer we expend American lives, supplies, funds, and intel in exchange for raiding the bunker to take those militants prisoner, even if we knew what tier of the organization they were part of, their lack of communication with the upper tiers, lack of supplies and finances, and so on that makes them not useful for interrogation or negotiation purposes, yet know of their malicious intent bent upon our troops bases?

NO - POW camps are not fine.

Where do you propose we keep our prisoners-of-war then?

NO- shooting bullets into people's heads is acceptable.

What if they are pointing a gun at you as well?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
and the greatest sacrifice we can make is to give up our rights...
Do you have kids?

This comes down to how real you think the threat is. If you thought there was a REAL chance that you or a loved one was in real danger, tapping incoming calls to / from terror suspects wouldn't seem like such a sacrifice.

In 1942 our government told families how much they could drive, how much meat, sugar, flour they could consume, when to turn off their lights, when not to use headlights, etc. These seem silly now but:
1. Some people today wouldn't tolerate it
2. After the crisis was over, those limitations were undone.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing

NO - dropping bunker busters on Tota Bora is not fine.

NO - POW camps are not fine.

NO- shooting bullets into people's heads is acceptable.

Where the F did you get that these things were OK?
In war this isn't acceptable? Since when?

My comment was a statement about our selective squeamishness. It was more philosophical than political.

If you want to argue it by saying shooting the enemy is not acceptable in war, I think you're trying too hard to be contrary.

Man, you people love your war and killing and you never change or give an inch on it. I guess I have to give you points for your consistency -- twisted as it may be.

Bush Contends Spying Program Vital, Legal

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago
SAN ANTONIO

President Bush strongly defended his domestic spying program on Sunday, calling it legal as well as vital to thwarting terrorist attacks, and contended the leak making it public had caused "great harm to the nation."

"This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America and, I repeat, limited," Bush told reporters after visiting wounded troops at Brooke Army Medical Center. "I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy's thinking."

In Washington, lawmakers are preparing for hearings to consider Bush's domestic spying program.

Four senators — two of them Republicans — indicated Sunday that congressional hearings were appropriate for considering Bush's assertion that he had constitutional and congressional authority to authorize domestic wiretaps without a court order in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"In the first few weeks we made many concessions in the Congress because we were at war and we were under attack," said Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. "We still have the possibility of that going on, so we don't want to obviate all of this. But I think we want to see what, in the course of time, really works best."

The New York Times reported last month that the National Security Agency had been conducting warrantless surveillance since 2002. Bush then acknowledged that he had authorized the NSA program and pointed to informing congressional leaders and regular reviews by administration officials as evidence of oversight for the program.

The Justice Department on Friday opened an investigation into the leak that resulted in news stories about the secret order to eavesdrop on Americans with suspected ties to terrorists.
"The fact that somebody leaked this program causes great harm to the United States," Bush said before returning to Washington from a holiday break at his Texas ranch. "There's an enemy out there."

Bush stressed that the surveillance involved telephone calls from "a few numbers" outside the United States by people associated with al-Qaida, the terrorist organization that plotted the Sept. 11 attacks. The White House later clarified Bush's remarks, saying he meant to say calls going to and originating from the U.S. were being monitored.

"It seems logical to me that if we know there's a phone number associated with al-Qaida or an al-Qaida affiliate and they're making phone calls, it makes sense to find out why," he said. "They attacked us before, they'll attack us again."

Bush didn't answer a reporter's question about whether he was aware of any resistance to the program at high levels of his administration and how that might have influenced his decision to approve it.

The Times reported Sunday that a top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the NSA program and would not sign off on its continued use as required by the administration's guidelines.

James B. Comey, a top deputy to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, was concerned with the program's legality and oversight, the Times and Newsweek reported. Administration officials then went to Ashcroft, who had been hospitalized for gallbladder surgery, to gain his approval, according to the newspaper, but it was unclear whether Ashcroft gave his approval.

Neither Comey nor Ashcroft would comment on the meeting, according to the Times. White House spokesman Trent Duffy declined Sunday to answer questions about the administration's internal discussions.

Many Democrats and some Republicans in Congress have questioned whether Bush's actions went beyond the constitutional powers and congressional resolution he has cited. In 1978 Congress established a secret court to handle sensitive requests for surveillance and to issue warrants — a system the NSA program bypassed.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has called for hearings into the program. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Sunday that he would prefer that any hearings be held by the Intelligence Committee, which likely would be in secret.

"We're already talking about this entirely too much out in public as a result of these leaks ... and it's endangering our efforts to make Americans more secure," McConnell said.

Appearing with McConnell on "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the Justice Department investigation should explore the motivation of the person who leaked the information.
"Was this somebody who had an ill purpose, trying to hurt the United States?" Schumer asked. "Or might it have been someone in the department who felt that this was wrong, legally wrong, that the law was being violated?"

Schumer released a letter he sent to Specter suggesting that current and former administration officials, including Comey and Ashcroft, be called to testify and that the administration waive executive privilege.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., appearing with Lugar on "Late Edition" on CNN, agreed with Lugar that Congress will focus in the new year on presidential powers in wartime.

"The White House wants to expand that power in so many areas," Durbin said. "Clearly, Congress is holding back."
--------------------------

So the latest spin is that the leak has caused 'great harm'. No explanation of how or why. He defends his program by saying that spying is necessary and makes no mention of warrants at all. Is this the best they can come up with?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060101/ap_on_go_pr_wh/domestic_spying;_ylt=ArMLdUl_xO50lFun3wwcI4Ss0NUE; _ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

I agree with President Bush.

And ...what does he have to defend ...........the New York Times makes no claim that a crime has been committed.


Slim

Originally posted by slim
I agree with President Bush.

And ...what does he have to defend ...........the New York Times makes no claim that a crime has been committed.


Slim

So slim, you say it's OK for the president to have unlimited spying authority with absolutely no oversight?

Is that correct?

You also say the New York Times is the sole organization that investigates these crimes and declares whether Bush has comitted a crime.

Is that correct?

And you say that violating his oath of office is not a crime?

Is that correct?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Man, you people love your war and killing and you never change or give an inch on it. I guess I have to give you points for your consistency -- twisted as it may be.

Who are "you people"?

Originally posted by Brooks
Dropping bunkerbusters on human beings in Tora Bora is fine in war, POW camps are okay, shooting bullets into people's heads is acceptable, but we'd better not tap phones.

It's weird when you really think about it.

The only thing weird is how Rightwingers have this obssessive compulsion to change the parameters of the argument, to twist and obfuscate the discussion in every way possible in order to escape any and all criticism.

This entire flap is about far more than just "tapping phones", as the article that forms the basis of this thread pointed out.......

...from that article;

"a growing outcry at home and abroad over its clandestine tactics........ (whcich include).....to maintain secret prisons abroad, to use interrogation techniques that some lawyers say violate international treaties, and to maintain a fleet of aircraft to move detainees around the globe. Other compartments within GST give the CIA enhanced ability to mine international financial records and eavesdrop on suspects anywhere in the world.
Over the past two years, as aspects of this umbrella effort have burst into public view, the revelations have prompted protests and official investigations in countries that work with the United States, as well as condemnation by international human rights activists and criticism by members of Congress."

Originally posted by Freethinker
The only thing weird is how Rightwingers have this obssessive compulsion to change the parameters of the argument, to twist and obfuscate the discussion in every way possible in order to escape any and all criticism.

If you think that trait is exclusive to those who hold the "right-wing" ideology, you are mistaken.

It is an observation Free holds. It was never intended to be an exclusive statement.

Originally posted by Evakian
If you think that trait is exclusive to those who hold the "right-wing" ideology, you are mistaken.

Point noted.

I perhaps should have directed the comment directly toward Brooks, and not toward rightwingers in general.

It's just that several rightwingers that I argue with regularly have that trait .........and one of the best know rightwingers, Rush Limbaugh, has that particular trait to the most extreme degree I have ever seen in a human being, and makes millions doing it.

Originally posted by Freethinker
The only thing weird is how Rightwingers have this obssessive compulsion to change the parameters of the argument, to twist and obfuscate the discussion in every way possible in order to escape any and all criticism.

My observation, as I said, was not political, but a little paranthetical aside. Assign whatever motivation to it that you would like, but it doesn't change the fact that it is true.

(and that definition would make Dop, among others, a rightwinger)

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
So slim, you say it's OK for the president to have unlimited spying authority with absolutely no oversight?

I didn't hear him say that (please see my signature line).

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Man, you people love your war and killing and you never change or give an inch on it.

That's right, and I have amassed over a million dollars providing the tools to wage it. Oh wait, that's you.

Originally posted by Brooks
I didn't hear him say that (please see my signature line).

Maybe you should read Slim's post before you comit to what you heard him say. Pretty clear to me he said he agrees with the president.

Cheap shot on that last one. Tough way to score a point.

Originally posted by Frogger
Not allowing the intelligence community to monitor the calls of suspected terrorists places the nation at grave danger. Haven't we heard this red herring about a thousand times by now? No one is suggesting that suspected terrorists not be monitored. There is a procedure that allows such monitoring when it involves a U.S. citizen. This procedure requires a warrant. Said warrant can be obtained up to 72 hours after the surveillance begins. That's it. That's all. Spy on a citizen, get a warrant first. It's easy to do, and it's the law. What is so hard to understand about this?

Pardon my anger, but I've had just about enough of this obdurate foolishness masquerading as reason.

Actually it's an easy way to score a point. That's why it's called a cheap shot. Doesn't mean much in the long run though.

Pardon my anger, but I've had just about enough of this obdurate foolishness masquerading as reason.

Not gonna work, sedan. Right-wingers don't care so much about reason as they do making their opponents look like they're soft on terrorists. They just want the trappings of reason with a gooey inner center of theistic totalitarianism. And once you point real reason out to them, they either backpedal, trying to make it look like you are the one in the wrong, or switch the topic to something else.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
NO - dropping bunker busters on Tota Bora is not fine.

NO - POW camps are not fine.

NO- shooting bullets into people's heads is acceptable.

Sure they are, under the right circumstances.

Originally posted by Brooks
1. The calls that are tapped are coming in from overseas from / to suspected terrorists supporters.

OK great, but the government has a long history of taking things too far, not to mention going after groups that are politically unpopular or opposed to the current government, etc. I honestly don't think Bush is up to something beyond trying to fight terrorism here, but these things always end up going too far. I'm not willing to give an inch on this because any precedent that allows the president or anyone else to get around rules that he doesn't like can and will be abused eventually.

Originally posted by Brooks
2. You have the luxury to speak in the abstract. I'm a cop living next to NYC and you live in Akron. It's like when people on this site say "I don't support what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Deep down, I have a feeling they don't think it will come to that. Just a hunch. (And to couch the argument as "give up my rights" is an exaggeration. In my opinion).

You're absolutely right, I'm most likely insulated from terrorism. I don't know what to do about that. I'm not trying to be casual about sacrificing citizens to terrorism - I just don't think the absolute security the government seems to be attempting to provide for us is ultimately possible, so I don't see the need to ignore certain parts of the Constitution.

"Give up my rights" is a bit dramatic, inasmuch as it implies that they'll all be lost. However, the point I'm trying to make is that I don't have any rights I'm willing to give up.

Originally posted by Frogger
Lionel, you are making it seem that phone conversations were just listened to at random. The phone calls were from 'bad guys' to 'bad guys'. Not allowing the intelligence community to monitor the calls of suspected terrorists places the nation at grave danger.

OK, but you're making it seem like this is the only option, when in fact they're allowed to monitor phone calls as long as they get court permission within 72 hours. And as I mentioned above, the chance for abuse of that power is immense, and past history suggests that it will get abused. And it also assumes the government is always correct, which of course it isn't. Certainly law enforcement needs some latitude to make errors. But imagine that the government is convinced you're a terrorist and starts monitoring your conversations. Since you're not a terrorist, they don't get any evidence of that, however they do learn that you're
taking some questionable deductions on your tax returns. Because they're still positive that you're a terrorist, they cart you off to jail for tax evasion instead. Fair?
Originally posted by Brooks
In 1942 our government told families how much they could drive, how much meat, sugar, flour they could consume, when to turn off their lights, when not to use headlights, etc. These seem silly now but:
1. Some people today wouldn't tolerate it
2. After the crisis was over, those limitations were undone.

Yeah, the tolerance for sacrifice is pretty limited these days. I think the difference is that 1) people were being asked to give up material things, not the right to privacy 2) there was a foreseeable end to the conflict, when clearly the war on terrorism is unlikely to ever end, thus making a supposedly wartime power rather permanent.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Right-wingers don't care so much about reason as they do making their opponents look like they're soft on terrorists. They just want the trappings of reason with a gooey inner center of theistic totalitarianism. And once you point real reason out to them, they either backpedal, trying to make it look like you are the one in the wrong, or switch the topic to something else.

You have captured their essence perfectly.

A good example being Frogger's and Brokks' continuing assertions that by criticizing the clandestine and illegal way that the various intel agencies are using their powers, people here are somehow totally opposed to their "tapping phones".

Which is a lie, and they know it.

No one is saying the CIA or FBI should be foirever banned from tapping telephones. All that their critics are saying is that they shoud abide by the LEGAL ways set out to go about such things, especially wehn it involves US citizens.

The ONLY way, seemingly, that these righties can score a point it to concoct some nonsensical --Oh, you librul pinkos don't want to allow ANY wiretaping!!"--- strawman.

Freethinker and Napsterbater

It is not us who is making you look weak in the fight against terrorism. It is you, yourselves.

It is easy to sit there in Peoria and say, Whoa, this fight is going too far. Those of us who were more intimately connected to the events of 9/11 might have a different perspective.

My town lost over fifty people that day. I walk through the park in the center of town dedicated to their memory on a weekly basis and see the flowers that are still placed next to their names. The father of one of my grandaughter's friends died that day. My son had an interview planned in one of the towers that day and would have been there had he not accepted an offer from another law firm the day before. I had four cousins who were in the towers that day and escaped with their lives.

To some of us the war on terror is an intellectual exercise while to others of us it is a real part of our lives.

If listening to bad guys talk to bad guys on the telephone lessens the chance of another 9/11 I am totally in favor of doing so.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Maybe you should read Slim's post before you comit to what you heard him say. Pretty clear to me he said he agrees with the president.

Cheap shot on that last one. Tough way to score a point.

Is there a reason you've avoided answering the variety of questions I've asked up-thread?

Originally posted by Frogger
If listening to bad guys talk to bad guys on the telephone lessens the chance of another 9/11 I am totally in favor of doing so.

It is in our best interest to keep tabs on our adversaries, I think we can all agree to that end, however, doing it unrestrained, without a check to that responsibility and power, may lead down the road, even immediate, abuses of power that invade our financial situations, or social difficulties. Going through the process of attaining a warrant in order to do those covert operations takes a matter of a day to three days, and allows for government and public recognition of those covert operations so we are aware of the doings of the intelligence agencies of the government, the writs issued are relatively easy and quick to obtain for our agencies, and provide a basis to restrain them in order to prevent abuses. It is good to see a government acting in interest of the people's security, but should they get overzealous, we require the actions to limit any unwanted behaviors.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Sure they are, under the right circumstances.
Yeah, I don't know what Dop was trying say when he made that rather daft statement, but whatever....
Originally posted by LionelHutz
OK, but you're making it seem like this is the only option, when in fact they're allowed to monitor phone calls as long as they get court permission within 72 hours. And as I mentioned above, the chance for abuse of that power is immense, and past history suggests that it will get abused. And it also assumes the government is always correct, which of course it isn't. Certainly law enforcement needs some latitude to make errors. But imagine that the government is convinced you're a terrorist and starts monitoring your conversations. Since you're not a terrorist, they don't get any evidence of that, however they do learn that you're taking some questionable deductions on your tax returns. Because they're still positive that you're a terrorist, they cart you off to jail for tax evasion instead. Fair?
Exactly.

Think about my perspective; I'm on the phone 2-3 hours a day to China, India, Russia, Korea, Taiwan, and various other countries in Southeast Asia. How do you think that makes me feel??? All I'm trying to do is broker certain commodities, possibly cement an oil deal or two, and here - I have to look forward to the government listening in?!?! No thank you. Your example of tax evasion is a perfect one.
Originally posted by LionelHutz
Yeah, the tolerance for sacrifice is pretty limited these days. I think the difference is that 1) people were being asked to give up material things, not the right to privacy 2) there was a foreseeable end to the conflict, when clearly the war on terrorism is unlikely to ever end, thus making a supposedly wartime power rather permanent.
That's exactly right, Lionel. I agree 100%. Excellent responses, BTW.

Originally posted by Frogger
Freethinker and Napsterbater

It is not us who is making you look weak in the fight against terrorism. It is you, yourselves.

Frogger, i wish there was some way to convey to you how incredibly phony, how meaningless, how unconstructive I see the whole **War on Terror** things as being.

I really could not care less that I or any other anti-war person "looks weak" on the "war on terror", because it is a nonsensical concept to begin with.......the way that I have explained it in the past is that for this country to think it is someohow ""fighting a war against terror" is precisely analogous to a man who has a tree far out in his back yard where he has NO reason to ever be, which has a hornet's nest in it, and the man makes the trip out to the nest ---with the attitude, "I will now force these hornets to acknowledge my power and to fear me to such an extent that they will cease in their terrible activities!!"--- he takes a long stick and begins beating the hornet's nest.

When you realized what is about to happen to the man stupid enough to do that, then you will understand what is going to happen to the U.S. --or any other country-- who imagines that they will wage a "war on terrorism".

Originally posted by Frogger
My town lost over fifty people that day. I walk through the park in the center of town dedicated to their memory on a weekly basis and see the flowers that are still placed next to their names. The father of one of my grandaughter's friends died that day.

Get one thing thru your head, Frogger; those people are dead BECAUSE OF the political policies of the very people you idolize and vote for.....the RightWing political faction in Washington.

Those people are dead because this government --either directly or indirectly-- brought about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the Middle East. Yet instead of taking the attitude -- "I will never again vote for a political faction to be in control of our government that causes American citizens to be the target of reprisal attacks by terrorists"-- you laud and praise the stupid, greedy m#therf@ckers who brought about their deaths.


Originally posted by Frogger
To some of us the war on terror is an intellectual exercise while to others of us it is a real part of our lives.

For me, it is neither.

The "war on terror" is nothing but a scam designed to enrich the owners of the huge oil and defense industries.

The "war on terror"" is a stupid man beating a hornet's nest with a stick and getting stung to death in the process, all the while thinking he is going to **make** the hornets fear and respect him enough to not harm him.

The "war on terror" is insanity in action.

Originally posted by Frogger
If listening to bad guys talk to bad guys on the telephone lessens the chance of another 9/11 I am totally in favor of doing so.

One last time;

...not one person here is saying that it should be completely disallowed for our intelligence agancies to tap phones of terrorists. We are talking about them NOT subverting the Constitutional rights of the American People in the pursuit of the "bad guys". .

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Cheap shot on that last one. Tough way to score a point.

"Man, you people love your war and killing and you never change or give an inch on it."

Yeah Dop, I can feel the love.

Originally posted by Freethinker
When you realized what is about to happen to the man stupid enough to do that, then you will understand what is going to happen to the U.S. --or any other country-- who imagines that they will wage a "war on terrorism".
In other words, we, as a nation, are entirely impotent and ineffective in fighting anyone who doesn't stand behind a nation's flag??? I say bullshit, FT. That's a pussy's perspective if ever I've heard one, and you should feel neutered for just having said it. The real problems come to existence when certain governments give them safe haven, and short of that, what else matters? If, in doing so, they're caught, and the war that ensues causes them to suffer extreme collateral damage, then so be it. When we were pumping oil out of their respective homelands, we weren't killing any of their people. How again, are we more responsible for 9-11 than, oh, say, England??? Outside of making their governments wealthy, just what did we do that warrants a "reprisal attack"? I say if they pull any more shit (even something small), then we should dismember their children while they're forced to watch. Not only would I kill their family pets, I'd ruthlessly murder their neighbors and friends. I'd cut their daughters in half, while repeatedly driving my Humvee over their son's bludgeoned carcasses. If we're to win this war, then we're going to have to learn to play by THEIR rules, and if that requires turning the sand into glass, then I'm all for it. In short, fuck those rat bastards. You may wanna lay down for 'em, but I don't.

Originally posted by Frogger
To some of us the war on terror is an intellectual exercise while to others of us it is a real part of our lives.


Very succinct. It took me four posts to try to say this.
I formally request permission to add this to my signature.

You know, I've given my statements some additional thought, and upon reflecting, I can only anticipate that some of you will say that my decision to kill them only makes me as bad as they are, but I'm gonna say bullshit anyway. By virtue of the fact that we didn't resort to such tactics first, by default, makes us better than they are. If you're playing a baseball game, and someone on first decks the baseman, then: A) the baseman has a right to defend himself, and B) they better recognize that they're no longer playing baseball. The same logic can be applied to the war on terror.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
dismember their children........kill their family pets... murder their neighbors and friends....I'd cut their daughters in half....driving my Humvee over their son's bludgeoned carcasses.....turning the sand into glass...
...just as long as you don't tap their phones.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
In other words, we, as a nation, are entirely impotent and ineffective in fighting anyone who doesn't stand behind a nation's flag??? I say bullshit, FT.

No, Prae.

I did not say that at all.

Terrorism could be ended tommorrow.

But not in the way that the U.S. has chosen.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
When we were pumping oil out of their respective homelands, we weren't killing any of their people.

Yes, we were.

While oil was being pumped out of Saudi Arabia, people in other Middle Eastern countries like Iraq were --from the perspective of the people living there-- undergoing immense hardships because of the sanctions against Iraq..........sanctions that were put in place because of U.S. pressure.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
How again, are we more responsible for 9-11 than, oh, say, England???

People like bin Laden saw that the US was more responsible that Britain for things like military bases in the Middle East, and the sanctions against Iraq.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Outside of making their governments wealthy, just what did we do that warrants a "reprisal attack"?

bin Laden spelled out EXACTLY what actions the US was undertaking that he was opposed to........things like installing unwanted military bases in the Middle East, Israeli (a client state of the U.S.) attacks on the Palestinians, and the sanctions against Iraq.


Originally posted by The Praetorian
I say if they pull any more shit (even something small), then we should dismember their children while they're forced to watch.

How Biblical of you! The religious faction here in the by-Gawd Yew Ess uv Aye would LOVE it!!


Originally posted by The Praetorian
Not only would I kill their family pets, I'd ruthlessly murder their neighbors and friends. I'd cut their daughters in half, while repeatedly driving my Humvee over their son's bludgeoned carcasses.

Spoken like a true Conservative!

Bravo!!

It would, of course, lead to reprisal attacks that would result in the deaths of many millions of Americans.....but hey, we'd have "sent them a message" about how *macho* we are.


Originally posted by The Praetorian
In short, fuck those rat bastards. You may wanna lay down for 'em, but I don't.

I just want to bring a complete end to the threat of terrorism. Period.

Which would mean carrying out actions far different from the ones this government is currently employing.

The Bush government's actions (although nowhere near as effectively as the actions you have outlined would do) are destined to make terrorism last forever.

Originally posted by Freethinker
"fighting a war against terror" is precisely analogous to a man who has a tree far out in his back yard where he has NO reason to ever be, which has a hornet's nest in it, and the man makes the trip out to the nest ---with the attitude, "I will now force these hornets to acknowledge my power and to fear me to such an extent that they will cease in their terrible activities!!"--- he takes a long stick and begins beating the hornet's nest.

Did you custom order this to help bolster my *new and improved* signature line?

More analogies, discussions, position papers, debates while they wait and plan.

Originally posted by Brooks
...just as long as you don't tap their phones.
:)

Originally posted by Frogger

To some of us the war on terror is an intellectual exercise while to others of us it is a real part of our lives.

So what, the opinion of everyone living outside of NYC and Washington D.C. doesn't count? That being said, your willingness to give up your right to privacy is just as much of an intellectual exercise because you know the chances of it happening to you are slim to none. I have to think that your opinion would change rather quickly were you to come home to a house that had been completely torn assunder and a little note from the FBI apologizing for the mess since you appear to be clean.

Originally posted by Brooks
...just as long as you don't tap their phones.

If you have to exaggerate my point . . .

What part of getting court review within 72 hours is so difficult for people to come to terms with?

Prae returns to favoring collective punishment...sigh

"fighting a war against terror" is precisely analogous to a man who has a tree far out in his back yard where he has NO reason to ever be, which has a hornet's nest in it, and the man makes the trip out to the nest ---with the attitude, "I will now force these hornets to acknowledge my power and to fear me to such an extent that they will cease in their terrible activities!!"--- he takes a long stick and begins beating the hornet's nest.

Originally posted by Brooks
Did you custom order this to help bolster my *new and improved* signature line?

That depends.

Do you think the man with the stick is going to "defeat" the hornets and force them to bend to his will, or is he doing something very unconstructive and counterintuitive.....??

Originally posted by Freethinker
[B]1. Terrorism could be ended tommorrow.

2. People like bin Laden saw that the US was more responsible that Britain for things like military bases in the Middle East, and the sanctions against Iraq.

3. Israeli (a client state of the U.S.) attacks on the Palestinians, [B]
1. Do tell.

2. Saudi Arabia gave us permission. Why not attack Saudi Arabia? Because they paid him off. Is that your terrorism solution? You may be right (see: food for oil).

3. Ehud Barak offered the PA 85% of what they wanted and they said no. The hatred of Israel is not related to the Palestinians, it's a convenient excuse.

"Next To Jews, We Hate Palestinians The Most" - King Fahd

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I say if they pull any more shit (even something small), then we should dismember their children while they're forced to watch. Not only would I kill their family pets, I'd ruthlessly murder their neighbors and friends. I'd cut their daughters in half, while repeatedly driving my Humvee over their son's bludgeoned carcasses.If we're to win this war, then we're going to have to learn to play by THEIR rules, and if that requires turning the sand into glass, then I'm all for it. In short, fuck those rat bastards. You may wanna lay down for 'em, but I don't.

I realize that you were most likely frustrated and/or angered when you typed this Prae, but those brutal tactics should not be resorted to by us, in any circumstance. That is overly cruel, and completely immoral, it would inflame anti-US sentiment further and calls for repeated assaults through terrorist tactics. That's not to say I am against fighting a war in order to stop these peccant militants, however you can win a war without lowering yourself to the level of your enemy, if you do that, then you have already lost.

Originally posted by Freethinker
While oil was being pumped out of Saudi Arabia, people in other Middle Eastern countries like Iraq were --from the perspective of the people living there-- undergoing immense hardships because of the sanctions against Iraq..........sanctions that were put in place because of U.S. pressure.
Not really, FT......those sanctions were put in place by your coveted UN, not us. You're forgetting - Saddam invaded Kuwait, killed lots of people, raped the land, and supported terrorism. That's the reason we levied the "political pressure": to stop that dictatorial lunatic from harming other people. If the asshole Bin Laden's of the world bothered to pull their heads out of their asses for a fleeting second, they'd realize that it was their own respective governments that inflicted "immense hardships" on their people, not us.

Now I know you're an apologist for any group/country/person who hates the US, but this is getting a little ridiculous, don't you think?
Originally posted by Freethinker
People like bin Laden saw that the US was more responsible that Britain for things like military bases in the Middle East, and the sanctions against Iraq.
Goddamned straight.

Someone had to carry the moral imperative here, and it certainly wasn't going to be Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.
Originally posted by Freethinker
bin Laden spelled out EXACTLY what actions the US was undertaking that he was opposed to........things like installing unwanted military bases in the Middle East, Israeli (a client state of the U.S.) attacks on the Palestinians, and the sanctions against Iraq.
And here, Osama would have a point. When Israel breaks a resolution, then they should be held accountable, and as of right now, they're given lots of leeway. Needless to say, I don't think that's right.
Originally posted by Freethinker
.....but hey, we'd have "sent them a message" about how *macho* we are.
Good, because I don't think they got that message in '79, or in '93, or again in '98.
Originally posted by Freethinker
I just want to bring a complete end to the threat of terrorism. Period.
Good - me too, but I don't think it'll ever end. As long as you have these toothless, camel-jockeying fucknuts, who live in a pile of their own piss and shit while sporting an RPG and an AK-47, people are going to die, period. I think terrorist supporters should be publicly hung and disemboweled. Hell, ANYONE caught red-handed, helping or plotting should be given a fair trial in Texas, and immediately drip-dried afterward.

Originally posted by Evakian
however you can win a war without lowering yourself to the level of your enemy, if you do that, then you have already lost.
You know, I've given my statements some additional thought, and upon reflecting, I can only anticipate that some of you will say that my decision to kill them only makes me as bad as they are, but I'm gonna say bullshit anyway. By virtue of the fact that we didn't resort to such tactics first AUTOMATICALLY makes us better than they are. If you're playing a baseball game, and someone on first decks the baseman, then: A) the baseman has a right to defend himself, and B) they better recognize that they're no longer playing baseball. The same logic can be applied to the war on terror.

You know, I've given my statements some additional thought, and upon reflecting, I can only anticipate that some of you will say that my decision to kill them only makes me as bad as they are, but I'm gonna say bullshit anyway. By virtue of the fact that we didn't resort to such tactics first AUTOMATICALLY makes us better than they are. If you're playing a baseball game, and someone on first decks the baseman, then: A) the baseman has a right to defend himself, and B) they better recognize that they're no longer playing baseball. The same logic can be applied to the war on terror.

Resorting to those aforementioned brutal tactics, whether first or as a counterattack, remains perpetually incorrect methodology to fight the enemy. The baseman has the right to defend himself, and take notice of the situation at hand, but to strike back in the same uncouth manner, lowers him to the same level, regardless of his self defense or not. Stopping these terrorists does not begin with mauling their offspring.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I say if they pull any more shit (even something small), then we should dismember their children while they're forced to watch. Not only would I kill their family pets, I'd ruthlessly murder their neighbors and friends. I'd cut their daughters in half, while repeatedly driving my Humvee over their son's bludgeoned carcasses. If we're to win this war, then we're going to have to learn to play by THEIR rules, and if that requires turning the sand into glass, then I'm all for it. In short, fuck those rat bastards. You may wanna lay down for 'em, but I don't. Reminiscent of H. L. Mencken: "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." Not that I approve, mind you. Pretty funny though.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Not really, FT......those sanctions were put in place by your coveted UN, not us.

I do not covet the UN.

And the sanctions against Iraq that the UN did put into place were put there BECAUSE the U.S. government ---using its tremendous power and influence-- was pushing for them to be put into place.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You're forgetting - Saddam invaded Kuwait, killed lots of people, raped the land, and supported terrorism.

YOU'RE forgetting that the US --thru April Glaspie-- okayed the attack.

The US suckered Saddam , so they could later have an excuse to turn on him and attack HIM.

Any human being on earth from a Middle Eastern country that trusts the USA is a fool.

quote:Originally posted by Freethinker
People like bin Laden saw that the US was more responsible that Britain for things like military bases in the Middle East, and the sanctions against Iraq.



Originally posted by The Praetorian
Goddamned straight.

Someone had to carry the moral imperative here,

ROTFL.

Posing the USA as acting in anything approaching a "moral" way in this entire decades-long conflagration in the Middle East is akin to saying that Jeffery Daumer had a "moral imperative" to see that his victims were fully cooked before he ate them.

quote:Originally posted by Freethinker
.....but hey, we'd have "sent them a message" about how *macho* we are.




Originally posted by The Praetorian
Good, because I don't think they got that message in '79, or in '93, or again in '98.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Bombing their nation into rubble and slaughtering 20 or 30 thousand innocent people --many of them women and children-- isn't enough to get anyone's attention or convince them the US is *serious*.

We need to "get tougher".



Originally posted by The Praetorian
As long as you have these toothless, camel-jockeying fucknuts, who live in a pile of their own piss and shit while sporting an RPG and an AK-47, people are going to die, period.

They feel obliged to carry out terrorist retaliations against us because of what the USGovernment has perpetrated against them for 16 years.

Every sane intelligence analyst in the world is well aware --and many of them have publicly stated it-- of the fact that 9/11 was blowback..........an inevitable response to this government's callous, inhuman and murderous policies in the Midle East.

The day the US stops in its win-at-all-costs pursuit of control of the oil resources in the Middle East and (in the process) stops killing innocent people in the Middle East is the day the tide will turn forever in the fight against terrorism.

Will that day ever come??......I seriously doubt it.


Originally posted by The Praetorian
I think terrorist supporters should be publicly hung and disemboweled.

You would recant that position instantly if you were forced to recognize and acknowledge that YOUR rightwing heroes here in the U.S. are the planet's number one exporters of terrorism.

"" ...the Pentagon IS the center of world military violence and terrorism. The US is the world’s leading exporter of tools of death and destruction. Let us be honest, we have been committed to violence as a way to address international conflicts for many, many years. ...Let us remember (George Bush senior's) words during the buildup to the US attack on Iraq: “there will be no negotiations…what we say goes.” “No negotiations” simply means we prefer violence. “What we say goes” expresses the arrogance, chauvinism and mystique of invincibility that has separated the US from the world."________http://www.zmag.org/morriscalam.htm

YOU'RE forgetting that the US --thru April Glaspie-- okayed the attack.

You're forgetting that April Glaspie has sworn that she never gave Saddam a green light to invade Kuwait.

It might come as a shock to you but I prefer to believe Ms. Glaspie over you.

The leftists ...............of course .......they are Saddam believers .......*L*.


Slim

Originally posted by Frogger


You're forgetting that April Glaspie has sworn that she never gave Saddam a green light to invade Kuwait.

Here is the transcript of what Ambassador Glaspie said to Hussein on the 25th of July, 1990;

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."


America's Ambassador was, for all intents and purposes, informing Hussein that it was none of the U.S's business what Iraq did regarding the Kuwait issue.

What Glaspie later swore to --after she was in deep trouble-- does not negate the words she spoke directly to Hussein.

Stick THAT in your fucking --"I believe her over you"-- pipe and smoke it.

I see this thread as two different fears:
Mine: Terrorism
Not Mine: Giving up our rights.

Mine is based on the efforts of creative people who are patient and clever and have vowed to continue. We can take steps to try to prevent this from happening.

"Giving up our rights" is based on a very narrow use of electronics eavesdropping. The long term fear of this is a slippery slope argument based on speculation with no real precedent in our history.

A couple of posts back someone alluded to the fact that once our government starts down this road, they go too far and we are stuck with it. When?

Giving up our rights" is based on a very narrow use of electronics eavesdropping. The long term fear of this is a slippery slope argument based on speculation with no real precedent in our history. Bullshit! The government has a very long history of subverting democracy through such means in very recent and past history. COINTELPRO is a great example.
A couple of posts back someone alluded to the fact that once our government starts down this road, they go too far and we are stuck with it. When? You are short sighted and show a distinct lack of knowledge on historical precident. Your "well its not now, it in the future" attitude is childish to say the least. Once a government secures its own survival through force and has the ability to weed out any homegrown dissidents it begins doing what ever the hell it wants.
Your "when" question is fucking stupid. How about NOW. It is against the law to spy on american citizens as outlined within the constitution and NSA directives. Bush ignored this, has openly admitted it and said "so what?" (Just like you are now...). The Busheviks are putting on a show of confidence because they are scared shitless that Americans might actually try to do something about it. But they also openly mock and laugh at said attempts because they feel that they already excercise enough control to stop it from happening.
"A spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, Tracey Schmitt, dismissed the effort as 'fringe, to say the least.' "'If Democrats choose to align themselves with such a laughable campaign, it will be at their own peril,' Ms. Schmitt said." If only a fringe cares about the constitution then fuck Americans they can have the fascist state they so heartily deserve. However this woman is speaking out her ass and she knows it. There is a vast majority of Americans that care very much about this issue.

Ben calls you a slave:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Benjamin Franklin

Also I started a new thread with this (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15671) but the Busheviks hid from it like girlie men...

This just in!!!!

The federal government themselves have been endangering our nations security. By posting laws that govern Americans on-line and in print the government has unwittingly played into the hands of the vast, dangerous, nuke-weilding terrorist world-wide network.
The government hadn't realized that terrorists around the world could merely look up what it takes to get a warrant to wiretap American citizens communications and adjust their strategery accordingly. "They can listen to our telephone calls!?!" exclaimed an unamed terrorist source "Holy Shit!" The terrorists are now using carrier pigeon to avoid detection.
The Federal and Local Governments have also adjusted their actions to avoid tipping off terrorists. "We will find out who is responsible for releasing this information and prosecute them accordingly. Laws will now be hidden from the terrorists and general public alike. If American's actually loved this coutry so much they should know all the laws by now," Attorney General Gonzalas remarked. "To continue posting our laws merely plays into the terrorists hands and endangers our country. Remember 9-11 and the country of Iran"
Mine: Terrorism Not Mine: Giving up our rights. And nice misrepresentation of what we are really talking about. Any government agent can go to any 'intelligence' judge and get a warrent to spy on anyone if they merely mention the word terrorism. Shit they can even do it 48 hours after the fact. However what BushCo did was intentionally circumvent any oversight because they were, more likely then not (i am aassuming here since anti-terrorist warrents are fairly easy to get), spying on people for political reasons rather then national security issues.

Originally posted by Brooks
Mine is based on the efforts of creative people who are patient and clever and have vowed to continue. We can take steps to try to prevent this from happening.

Yes we can, and there are mechanisms in place for that. Would someone please explain to me what the hell is wrong with the current provision that would allow spying on U.S. citizens as long as they get a warrant within 72 hours? Seems like a nice balance to me, but apparently not to you.

Originally posted by Brooks
"Giving up our rights" is based on a very narrow use of electronics eavesdropping. The long term fear of this is a slippery slope argument based on speculation with no real precedent in our history.

You mean like J. Edgar Hoover's huge library of files on people he didn't like? Seems like a pretty concrete example to me.

Originally posted by Brooks
A couple of posts back someone alluded to the fact that once our government starts down this road, they go too far and we are stuck with it. When?

We're not stuck with it, but it is hard to get rid of. Particularly in this situation, where we're using a war that really will never end to justify a "temporary" exception to the rule.

Let me ask you this: the reasoning put forward by several people in this thread has been that because the U.S. citizens in question are most likely involved in terrorism, putting aside the Constitution in this situation is justified. But the thing of it is, the Constitution is supposed to protect citizens (and others) in just those situations. Take freedom of speech for instance. Nobody ever tries to suppress everyday non-controversial speech. It's always the edgy, controversial speech that people argue should be suppressed - like the Nazi marchers from a few months ago. Likewise the government is never going to spy someone to get their recipe for apple pie. If we make exceptions every time a difficult to defend situation comes up, why even have a constitution? Us average people are otherwise protected by our very averageness.

Guerilla, I calmly asked for examples of precedence.
You said I was shortsighted and lacked knowledge.
That may be true.

But I'm still waiting.

Originally posted by Brooks
But I'm still waiting. I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question How does this leak endanger national security?

And saying Well, it used to be a secret and now it isn't anymore is not an answer.

I suspect the reason no one will answer this question is because they can't.

Originally posted by sedan
I suspect the reason no one will answer this question is because they can't.

I'll try, then you answer mine.

I think Al Qaeda, their morale and their recruitment is affected by what they believe we are willing to do to defeat them.

They have got to be looking at this, scratching their heads and thinking, "Man, they won't even do this???". Wouldn't this encourage you if you were them?

Besides that, anytime you're willing to curtail an available method of gathering intelligence, it definitely has a detrimental effect. How can it not?

Now, someone please give me examples of what y'all claimed has absolutely happened before, and will definitely happen again.

Originally posted by Brooks
A couple of posts back someone alluded to the fact that once our government starts down this road, they go too far and we are stuck with it. When? I think that person was Lionel and he has already answered you. You do see his point, don't you? The war on terrorism will never end. Any rights we give up for the duration of that war are gone for good.

As for what has happened before, folks like Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon have misused our institutions to achieve their private ends. In the past our Republic has been strong enough to withstand these kinds of attacks, but just barely and with modest success. I don't think our current generation of politicians is up to the task of defending the Constitution from the depredations of Bush. I wont speak for others, but that is what concerns me.

Originally posted by Brooks
I'll try, then you answer mine.

I think Al Qaeda, their morale and their recruitment is affected by what they believe we are willing to do to defeat them.I think they are absolutely nuts and nothing we do or do not do affects their 'morale' one iota.They have got to be looking at this, scratching their heads and thinking, "Man, they won't even do this???". Wouldn't this encourage you if you were them?If they are as STUPID as Republicans are pretending to be, and think that opposition to illegal spying on U. S. citizens means the same thing as opposition to legal spying, then maybe. But I don't think they are that stupid. And they don't need any encouragement to hate us. They already do. I also think that any 'if we were them' or 'they were us' kind of argument doesn't work. You and I will never understand them, and they will never understand us.Besides that, anytime you're willing to curtail an available method of gathering intelligence, it definitely has a detrimental effect. How can it not?ONE MORE FREAKING TIME: What is so 'curtailing' about getting a warrant 72 hours after surveillance begins? I am completely baffled by the inability of supposedly rational people to comprehend this simple fact: the 'method of gathering information' already exists. Just do it legally. Doesn't it bother you that Bush opened this can of worms when he never had to? That the only reason he did it was to broaden the powers of the Executive? If you really believe this whole fiasco is helping Al-Queda you ought to be angry with Bush for acting illegally in the first place.

I'll give you credit, Brooks. You at least tried to answer the question, and made a good job of it. That's more than the President can say.

Originally posted by sedan
I think that person was Lionel and he has already answered you. You do see his point, don't you?

The entire worst case scenario I was being warned against comes down to Lionel saying "J Edgar Hoover"? That's it? That's the answer I was waiting for?

Originally posted by Brooks
They (the terrorists) have got to be looking at this, scratching their heads and thinking, "Man, they won't even do this???"

You seem to have it backwards........because the U.S. government is doing it.

They (the terrorists) have got to be looking at this, scratching their heads and thinking, "Man, the people running the government in America are so fanatical about catching us that they are willing to go against their sacred document, the U.S. Constitution, and risk going to jail just so they can wiretap us!!"

Originally posted by sedan
1. I think they are absolutely nuts and nothing we do or do not do affects their 'morale' one iota.

2. That the only reason he did it was to broaden the powers of the Executive?

3. I'll give you credit, Brooks. You at least tried to answer the question, and made a good job of it. That's more than the President can say.
1. I've learned from individuals on these threads, mainly the ones that would agree with you more often than me, that we have caused recruitment to skyrocket. We have created new terrorists in Iraq, too.

2. That's his ENTIRE motivation. You're sticking with that?

3. Where are the Dem congressmen saying this is illegal or trying to end the program immediately. They're not so sure this is illegal. Maybe it's also up to them to explain why this is NOT legal.

What is so 'curtailing' about getting a warrant 72 hours after surveillance begins? I am completely baffled by the inability of supposedly rational people to comprehend this simple fact: the 'method of gathering information' already exists. Just do it legally. Doesn't it bother you that Bush opened this can of worms when he never had to?

How many times is sedan going to have to point this out? Dear lord, I see more evasion on this thread than a game of monkey shit dodgeball.

Originally posted by Brooks
1. I've learned from individuals on these threads, mainly the ones that would agree with you more often than me, that we have caused recruitment to skyrocket. We have created new terrorists in Iraq, too.Yes, our actions have created new terrorists. What I said was that our actions do not affect their morale. A morale based on pure hatred does not falter. The Soviet people in WWII are a good example.2. That's his ENTIRE motivation. You're sticking with that?No, I think it's possible that Guerilla is correct and the wiretaps may go beyond suspected terrorists.3. Where are the Dem congressmen saying this is illegal or trying to end the program immediately. They're not so sure this is illegal. Maybe it's also up to them to explain why this is NOT legal. It's easy to explain why it is not legal. FISA is very clear: you cannot electronically surveil an American citizen without a warrant. You are right about the Democrats, though. They seem incapable of assuming any political risk in order to do the right thing.

Originally posted by sedan
No, I think it's possible that Guerilla is correct and the wiretaps may go beyond suspected terrorists.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, nor do I try to concern myself unnecessarily, but here is a case where I agree with you, Sedan. When all is said and done, I don't like the idea of entrusting our government with MORE authority. As you've already pointed out, it’s entirely unnecessary, so what's the motivation, if not to spy on American people for no reason, whatsoever? In short, they're usurping power while undermining the constitution, and that, I find appalling.

Thr FISA judges are calling out Bush on his motive for circumventing their authority. I would imagine part of the discussion will be who did you spy on? -- names please.

Bush can give them the names and show he was spying with terrorism in mind or he can refuse to give the names (most likely scenario) which shows he is spying on americans, dissenters, congress and the media.

This meeting with FISA will tell it all.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Bush can give them the names and show he was spying with terrorism in mind or he can refuse to give the names (most likely scenario) which shows he is spying on americans, dissenters, congress and the media.

This meeting with FISA will tell it all.

So if they turn out to be terror suspects you'll be satisfied?

I doubt it.

So this meeting with FISA will not settle anything.

Originally posted by Brooks
So if they turn out to be terror suspects you'll be satisfied?

I doubt it.

So this meeting with FISA will not settle anything.

It will indeed settle something .. whether the FISA court remains or goes. If Bush is never going to use the FISA court then there is no sense having one.

Originally posted by sedan
1. Yes, our actions have created new terrorists. What I said was that our actions do not affect their morale.

2. No, I think it's possible that Guerilla is correct and the wiretaps may go beyond suspected terrorists.

3. It's easy to explain why it is not legal. FISA is very clear: you cannot electronically surveil an American citizen without a warrant. You are right about the Democrats, though. They seem incapable of assuming any political risk in order to do the right thing.
1. Recruitment and morale are affected by the same factors. If one goes up, so then does the other.

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

3. If it was that clearly illegal, the Dems wouldn't be taking ANY risk in saying so.

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.


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.