In Speech, Bush Says He Ordered Domestic Spying.

[adciv]

I finally came across an article that somewhat explains the Presidents view that this is constitutional:

Lee Casey, who worked in the Reagan Justice Department, said the dispute boils down to whether one believes fighting terrorism is a matter of war or a matter of law enforcement.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... wers_x.htm

[Tasty Biscuit Toothpaste]

Isn't that what I've been saying, though? That it hinges on whether or not the military authorization to use force against terrorists constitutes a declaration of war?

Also, three people are suing to see if the court orders that were obtained to wiretap on them were issued with the evidence favoring their obtainment gotten from prior warrantless wiretapping. If the courts determine the evidence was indeed gotten from warrentless wiretapping, then that will leave them open to sue the federal government over this and have it all possibly determined to be illegal by the courts.

[Deacon]

More domestic spying info released.

[Tasty Biscuit Toothpaste]

I had heard about that, actually, before that article came out. I realized it's not anything Google isn't doing, that they're making charts and graphs of their visitors, and that if they need a cookie from someone accessing it in Afghanistan who later accesses it from D.C. to get a hint there's a terrorist, something may be wrong.

I also briefly wondered if it might be illegal, but oddly enough, shoved that thought away, convincing myself that somehow after the NSA scandal they would straighten up and fly right with anything so minor like this. I'm not bothered by this action at all. I'm just slightly bothered they'd violate their own rules. Near neutral. If it's a stupid law, then it should be stricken down, and not circumvented. It might've been an accident anyway.

More important than that, this says something to me. The NSA said this was illegal and took them down, but the provision of FISA that says the president may authorize the NSA to use electronic surveillance without a warrant every 15 days would allow them to collect the cookies, also. I don't get that. You could argue the part of the act passed in 2003 disallowing this would be meant to apply during the current period, judging by when it was passed, but then Congress might be admitting the wiretapping was illegal by the same reasoning. Am I wrong in thinking that either they are both illegal, or that they are both not?

It might not surprise you, Deacon, to know that the person who actually cared enough to alert the NSA and the media of this was Daniel Brandt, founder of Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch. What wonderous website designs to behold! Just when you thought .com addresses with Geocities-like website designs died out in the early 90s.

[Deacon]

That was totally a sarcastic post. The people complaining about cookies being used on websites either don't know how they work or are tin-foil idiots with nothing better to do. Or quite easily both.

[adciv]

Tasty Biscuit Toothpaste, That argument sounds familiar... You post on /., don't you.

[Tasty Biscuit Toothpaste]

Once or twice about a month ago.

Nevermind about both being illegal or both being legal; it's a different situation than I thought, because I just noticed that what I thought was a law was, instead, a memo from the executive branch denying the authorization needed under a law. Sorry.

[rogue_subgenii]

very good thread on the views of the topic at hand... the nature of this is rather charming to watch and could lead to the fall of favor of the neocon from DC. The nature of it is that anyone can easily using a lawyer to argue anything and this was probably was Bush was so wanting to stack the courts in his favor.

Since part of this has to deal with Presidential Orders, what are the limits on them?

since this answer wasn't really given or at least not to a point that i found... they are called executive orders and by that nature, wheres a limit? a quick search on google turned up a quick little gem...



and to think this is just one of the papers he handed the nsa... who knows what else was written and hidden away because it national security. People have pulled the wool over their eyes because they don't want to understand the government workings of their country which is why America has such a low voter turn out when compared to other democratic countries. Why they don't get involved could be another topic into itself.

not to go off topic by try look in at Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001. Then be afraid


I wonder why more people arent using this quote or its many versions when talking about this issue.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both

must less most probably wont even know who said it. but i bet someone here does even if they cheat and google it.

[Dr. Tower]

Except for the fact that if you read this forum much, you would know that it has been thrown around this forum a lot, and that some people even have it in their signatures (or have in the past).

In short, it was the biggest pimp America has ever known, Ben Franklin. The reason nobody has used it in this thread is that it has become overused in this forum.

[Deacon]

[quote="rogue_subgenii";p="579318"]I wonder why more people arent using this quote or its many versions when talking about this issue.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both

[/quote]
Because it would likely be met by:

The 'will of the people' is an obstacle to be worked around, not an interest to be served.

must less most probably wont even know who said it. but i bet someone here does even if they cheat and google it.

Look, you're new here, so I'll give you a piece of advice: as much as we bicker back and forth, most of us would probably turn around and punch you in the mouth and then strangle you with your own middle-schoool arrogance, arrogance which is wildly misplaced. In fact, most people here would probably be able to correct you in noting that Franklin's original quote included the word "essential" before "liberty". Seriously, this isn't the kiddie pool or some MySpace forum. You're going to have more problems than me if you keep that kind of silly shit up.

[Tasty Biscuit Toothpaste]

I remember that order. If I understand what it is at first glance, it allows them to withhold information relating to the president's biography and activities from the National Archives and Records Administration, who works on them and maintains museums, I think, excepting Nixon's, relatng to them, for up to 12 years after a presidency ends. Under this George W. Bush is keeping his and his father's presidential records classified.

I've heard about that before, but have never seen the law. I heard it from Lou Dobbs, criticizing Howard Dean for keeping his biographical records locked up while criticizing Bush's related actions.

Also, please do use the shift key more often, and watch where your fingers are typing.

[Martin Blank]

[quote="rogue_subgenii";p="579318"]

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both

must less most probably wont even know who said it. but i bet someone here does even if they cheat and google it.[/quote]
Both widely known, and part of the random quotes rotation at the bottom of the index page. Here's the proper line:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

You do come across as a little... not arrogant... maybe smug. You'll get ripped pretty badly by the PACE regulars if you continue like that while you're new.

[rogue_subgenii]

Ill admit I got served from my previous post... the shame of doing anything at such a late hour must have gotten to me. Either that or I got hit with a stupid stick by a little devil but lets not go there.

That said Im sorry.
[/off topic]

Under this George W. Bush is keeping his and his father's presidential records classified.

I've heard about that before, but have never seen the law. I heard it from Lou Dobbs, criticizing Howard Dean for keeping his biographical records locked up while criticizing Bush's related actions.

When does a public's right to know outweight any effect it may have on anything... more so that records are declassified many years after any real outside political damage could be done.

I guess by seeing people defending spying there is two sides to this issue but Im seriously not grasping why items of such historical value be kept from the public. (also why I dislike Dean, hes got the mouth but no real balls to put his "money" or political influence where his mouth is.)

At heart to this issue... Its lying to the american people about what really went on behind the scenes. By far the greatest example (imho) why we really arent a democratic nation anymore. Sure there are other factors but at the heart of them it comes back to public knowledge of events.

The 'will of the people' is an obstacle to be worked around, not an interest to be served.

Same thing could be said about the media... wait it is... I actually heart the nature of that quote as It really defines the nature of this conflict between the left and the right... except this time its the far right and the just left of that. Its a shame it has to be an inner conflict when it be much more fun to watch the chaos of everyone going at it.

Tho there is probally a smart reason why its a bad political move for the Democratic Party... but they are always playing the safe route arent they, well for the most part.

[adciv]

[quote="rogue_subgenii";p="579397"]

Under this George W. Bush is keeping his and his father's presidential records classified.

I've heard about that before, but have never seen the law. I heard it from Lou Dobbs, criticizing Howard Dean for keeping his biographical records locked up while criticizing Bush's related actions.

When does a public's right to know outweight any effect it may have on anything... more so that records are declassified many years after any real outside political damage could be done.[\quote]

Lets start by defining when the public absolutely has no right to know. Under the publics right to know, Military operations in various wars have been publisized prior or during the operation taking place when secrecy was necessary. This was done by the press getting people to leak information and led to many soldiers getting killed becuase the enemy found out what was going to happen and prepared to counter it. Note, I do not mean the fact that we were actually at war (such as with Veitnam and the volumes of the Pentagon Papers that were released) but as with some operations during WWII (probably more since then, but I don't know of any off the top of my head). "Loose Lips Sinks Ships" is and has been applicable to more than just ships over the years.

If you want some real doosies on the publics right to know, look at some of the decisions Churchill made during WWII, where he had to not warn people an attack was coming (and subsequently let many people die) instead of warning them of an attack. This was done to prevent the Germans from knowing we had broken the engima machine codes.

I guess by seeing people defending spying there is two sides to this issue but Im seriously not grasping why items of such historical value be kept from the public. (also why I dislike Dean, hes got the mouth but no real balls to put his "money" or political influence where his mouth is.)

Maybe because some of the papers are still relavent to security? It's now 2006, all those papers are now in public view and have been for almost a year now. There are things which have been kept secret for over 30 years, the war has ended and we became friends with the nation we were at war with. The most secret thing about the SR-71 Blackbird was that no one knew it existed except those who were necessary to keeping them flying. I'd argue that it was in the publics best interest NOT to know about it while it was still in use.

At heart to this issue... Its lying to the american people about what really went on behind the scenes. By far the greatest example (imho) why we really arent a democratic nation anymore. Sure there are other factors but at the heart of them it comes back to public knowledge of events.

Explain this. You claim something but give no reasons or details or sources. BTW, lying to the US public is nothing new and has been going on for 50+ years.

The 'will of the people' is an obstacle to be worked around, not an interest to be served.

Same thing could be said about the media... wait it is... I actually heart the nature of that quote as It really defines the nature of this conflict between the left and the right... except this time its the far right and the just left of that. Its a shame it has to be an inner conflict when it be much more fun to watch the chaos of everyone going at it.

I've bolded the phrases above that needs clarification on what you mean.
Oh, and once again, Explain this. You claim something but give no reasons or details or sources.

Tho there is probally a smart reason why its a bad political move for the Democratic Party... but they are always playing the safe route arent they, well for the most part.

[/quote]

Explain this. You claim something but give no reasons or details or sources. Which part is the bad move? Playing the "safe route"?

[rogue_subgenii]

[quote="adciv";p="579408"]
[snip] This was done by the press getting people to leak information and led to many soldiers getting killed because the enemy found out what was going to happen and prepared to counter it. [snip] [/quote]

I see that as reference from before: Could you kill x to save y

x being "a person" or more then one

y the life's of many, be that 10, 100, etc...

when is the life of one more important then another? is it the greater good, when does the morals of thou shall not kill take part... does it matter if your not the one doing the actual killing?

I am merely going by the reference that such a delay in the information isn't that bad... most of the time. Some may say the leak about the bay of pigs might have prevent the cold war from getting out of hand. Playing the guessing game when looking back towards history is really what makes it enjoyable to myself in topics such as this.

I don't care that the NY times waited a year to print the story. The fact of that the story was printed eventually. By using the same logic about the code breaking, in theory this could lead to why there is so many conspiracy theory's about 9/11 and the WTC buildings going down.

Right or wrong they lied to us before why not do it again?

I wish more papers would take a step back and think about what they print. They are the voice of the people... a check and balance to those in power. but often its abused, by the all guns blazing approach, and news turned into a highlight or sound byte instead of what it was all about really imho, public debate.

I think someones sig quote references this as well, (he he just check its your sig go figure. I mean no offense to you personally when I reference it)

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson

People listen to the major news networks where its not about public debate but instead telling them what to think. Well as a whole as these major networks do take calls from the public. But myself as more liberal dislike watching fox news because It doesn't appeal to me. Now Ill bite the bullet and sit down and watch a few but I'm guessing as a whole people look at a very limited amount of sources for their information.

The media is an arena for public option and instead its turn into a crusade with the left vs right.

Common sense says they wouldn't have leaked anything about the CIA and instead turned in those who leaked such information as the story itself... That would have sold alot more papers yes? Libby attempts to leak classified information to the public as a weapon... it would have really put the nail on the coffin that the Downing Street memo goes towards. Not looking at the facts and think of what it means. Which is why I'm glad Powell is speaking out now.

Information was twisted to fit the cause they wanted. One could argue looking back filling in the blanks with paranoid thoughts: if they lied before hand; Why not this time? They looked at how many would die from a panic attempting to leave the city to how many would die in the tower, and felt that "tower > panic". But that is a really a big what if... I HAVE no clue about most of that for a reason. Either because someone decided it was in the nature of public good that events go down the way they did or it was them catching us with our pants down... maybe a mix of both? Truth or not they did it once why not again? The fact that after the event it was consider traitors to even question the events gave us the problem we are having with the fallout of favor of the Neo Con agenda. (Who on the link I give would name them Reactionaries)

Where do you draw the line in the sand, when is the public right to know balanced by whats going on... Sure we aren't as bad as say Egypt? who put someone in jail for voter fraud. But we do have a few people in trouble for fund raising. Heck here in Washington state, the offices of the local Republican party were broken into Watergate style with almost little real political backlash by the Seattle liberals. It was charmed down to "Hey they probably broke into their own officials for public mythical reasons"

[snip] There are things which have been kept secret for over 30 years, the war has ended and we became friends with the nation we were at war with.

Building a friendship based on lies for political gain and economy gain is a battle of thoughts. A huge coin to decide what side you want. I am sure people at large are smarter then most given them credit for. A simple it was war we did some really shady things... we screwed up, will you forgive us? I think that would have helped alot of our political problems now. (For the most part countries outside our alliances we are viewed as not caring what others have to say about us. Do as we say not as we do. We will do what we please and damn you and yours. ETC)

Its like if your best friend is cheating on his wife, where does your role come to this. Hes your friend and for the sake of his marriage you keep to your business, or you attempt to lure him away from cheating... or tell her and let her deal with her own problems. It could go many ways.

Problems aren't as big as they seem if you look at details... sadly its like we lost half the box of puzzle pieces. The other side of the coin is yes the devil is in the details. Is ignorance really bliss?

The most secret thing about the SR-71 Blackbird was that no one knew it existed ...

Its knowledge was release eventually yes? by whatever reason.. it was released to the public arena.

At heart to this issue... Its lying to the American people about what really went on behind the scenes. By far the greatest example (imho) why we really aren't a democratic nation anymore. Sure there are other factors but at the heart of them it comes back to public knowledge of events.

Explain this. You claim something but give no reasons or details or sources.

"We the people" part of founding of this country was its heavily influence of the press, that's why the First Amendment is the first. In order for the people to vote on who they feel will best lead us... we or at least myself almost demand to know who really we are voting for. And in most cases like the post

I heard it from Lou Dobbs, criticizing Howard Dean for keeping his biographical records locked up while criticizing Bush's related actions.

I feel by without real knowledge of who is what... and what is going on that we pulled the wool over our own eyes. And in such people who run this country are doing it for themselves and gains towards their groups. Fund raising scams, oil price scams, Enron... savings and loan, Waco, spying on peace activists. And these are just the good ones that were released to the public. What about our arm sales? Something ironically I hear people attempting to give flack to China about. or what the French got with Iraq's Oil for food scam.

4 reference points from declaration of Independence

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: (Free trade? WTO?)

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: (Tax breaks for the rich not the poor?

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: (Do I need an example? Such as everyone in a sense needs a lawyer to really defend themselves thus tipping the scales of justice to the rich.)

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offense: (Cia secret prisons, some may agree they aren't really Americans so our domestic laws dont really apply to them.)


Its a bit off topic but explains the nature why I feel we are more a republic then a democratic nation. In such that I could explain this but would require alot of effort. and really is a probably biased on myself for thinking such.

BTW, lying to the US public is nothing new and has been going on for 50+ years.

Just because something has been done before doesn't mean everyone has to do it that way. I wish more people would think outside the box. We are something like what 5% of the worlds population if that... and I bet in the grand budget of things. I am probably aiming high when I think we are easily 50% of the military spending pie.

The 'will of the people' is an obstacle to be worked around, not an interest to be served.

Same thing could be said about the media... wait it is... I actually heart the nature of that quote as It really defines the nature of this conflict between the left and the right... except this time its the far right and the just left of that. Its a shame it has to be an inner conflict when it be much more fun to watch the chaos of everyone going at it.

I've bold ed the phrases above that needs clarification on what you mean.
Oh, and once again, Explain this. You claim something but give no reasons or details or sources.

If I gave or had all the answers it wouldn't really be a debate would it? I'm happy to explain my train of thought, and I hope its understandable, but I tend to leave the blanks out for future posts.


Media by the far right has been given the image of liberal biased. When in fact some of the same things could be sad about both sides. (One must attempt to always look at both sides.) When you say there are some secrets that must be kept for the greater good.

When people listen to something they come to it with a sense of bias. Its the nature of our thoughts. Thus thinking the press is helping the enemy by putting such information on the public domain.

Freedom of the press could in such be an obstacle to winning war of (fill in the blank).

In the political system we have now we have two sides. Label as Right and Left. Thus some could say While McCain is apart of the right hes not the same "right" as Bush is. Thus I put Bush in the far right, the radical role... and everyone who is apart of the right that disagrees with him thus would be more towards the center of the spectrum. Aka more left then that guy.

Tho there is probably a smart reason why its a bad political move for the Democratic Party... but they are always playing the safe route aren't they, well for the most part.

Explain this. You claim something but give no reasons or details or sources. Which part is the bad move? Playing the "safe route"?

safe route: not taking a stand as a political party like the Republicans have done against issues at hand: guns, marriage rights, pro-life, etc.

Its the faults of the two party system at hand. You have to be either for something or against it, and when you dont take a stand for whatever reason on a issue you in a sense playing the safe political route. Lets not fight them on that issue lets go to this or that one instead.

Dean is a good example when he was rushed out of public spotlight when he said that (paraphrase) for the most part Republican party is a white Christan party. He choose to take a stand at what he felt was at the core of the other party, and was given no public support to back him up. Didn't help that he wasn't really given a chance to explain himself.

Voting in a sense is always drawn into this arena and played out with the faults and bonuses that it has towards the goal of votes. Because the media accepts business money... the political process can be bought and sold.