NSA tries to form domestic call monitoring site 7 mos. before 9/11

From here.

[Homer Simpson] Mmmmmm, lies…[/HS]

Meh. Could have something to do with the intelligence sector aware of a problem before 9/11. Remember the assertions that Bush knew of the attacks beforehand?

Are you Pitting Bush, the NSA, Clinton, CIA? Some sort of archaic (1934) law that didn’t take into account the forms of communication that would emerge 65 years later?

You may have a legit beef with this item, but taken in context I need a little more meat on the bones to pull up a chair.

Well Bush certainly deserves a pitting over this. When asked why he dodged the FISA court, Bush cited 9/11:

Of course that’s got to be a lie if program predated 9/11. And if it predated 9/11 it also predates congress’s conferral of super wartime powers to the executive office. Now those superpowers have come into question by the supreme court in the past week, but if all this happened before the prez even got them, then Gonzalez justification for the spying is bullshit, and the whole domestic monitoring program was illegal from the get go.

Given the low priority the republicans put on terrorism before 9/11, I wonder if they originally went to domestic call monitoring in hopes of furthering Ashcroft’s anti-porn crusade? Nah, Bush probably started it for far less benign reasons.

I’m pitting the bush administration for using the tired “____ is neccesary because of 9/11” excuse. Sure lots of things are now needed because of those events, but you don’t get to use it as an excuse to justify questionable government behavior.

I understand that some National Security matters require secrecy. Spying on U.S. citizens on such a large scale is excessive, and could lead to an even more invasive government.

bush has turned 9/11 into an excuse to do whatever the fuck he wants. In this instance (assuming all of this is true) he used 9/11 because he knows everyone will buy it. He never holds himself accountable for his actions. He will sidestep this using platitudes, flag waving, all the while spewing “9/11 this and 9/11 that”.

The events of 9/11 indicate that we needed to be more aware of security concerns before 9/11. I’d respect the administation more if they said “we need to do this in order to make our country more secure” instead of “the reason we got caught doing that was, uh, uh,… remember all those people who died?”

I think you will find that your brain will work better after you remove Dubya’s ball sack from your mouth.

Duffer is Jeff Gannon? :eek:

Yes, yes it will. How I missed that little detail is unacceptable. I shall fall back inline and keep quiet in criticizing ciriticism.

We are truly in an age when all our freedoms are laid by the roadside. I fear for my safety. Can anyone here tell me how to save my family? I fear my liberties are are being eroded to the point I shan’t be a free man much longer.

I’ve been hearing this for years. Just wondering when the other shoe will drop.

Anyone? Why am I still posting here? Why haven’t the Brownshirts taken me away? Why is anyone “anti-whatever the hell it is” still posting here without posting bail?
I’m done trying to defend anyone or proving anyone wrong. The fact we all still post here proves the “Big Bad Bush Cabal” is fodder for people with time on their hands. The same oppression touted today is the same as those touting the oppression in the '90’s. Talk to someone that just arrived here from Somalia. Or from the former Yuogoslav Republic.

Ask them how bad this country is. Then think twice when posting whit to a message board.

Fuck off if you don’t like it. There are people worldwide that see the US as a chance to start over with a secure base. You may not like it, and there are plenty of things to gripe about, but it’s a much better situation than they were in.

No “Rah, rah, U.S.A.” here, but I’ll take the story of a hunted farmer in his homeland talking about America over someone that would get so worked over one of my posts.

Insignificance? Throw the rock. Plenty of glass houses around here. Life is so difficult when the decision to buy vegetables isn’t factored into the budget of the internet access.

Cheers mate! I’m not English BTW.

I have been drunk many times before, I understand your situation.

You asked me for more “meat” on the “bones” of my arguments. You come back with nonsense.

I’ll freely exclude the grammar and logic flaws you exhibited.

You make me feel sorry for you.

Live the Lie!
“Righteous” peole lie too.

people lie too that is

Now, dnooman, while I’m on your side of the fence here, duffer’s post certainly didn’t deserve that kind of response. That was just dumb.

While this is obviously hyperbole, certainly you have noticed that certain freedoms have been eroded and diminished?

You realize that a country usually doesn’t go from happy democracy to oppressive dictatorship overnight? Brownshirts don’t start taking people away or stop people from posting until after a lot of other bad shit has happened and been allowed to happen.

As for the rest of your post, every single place except one can be defended on the grounds that there are other places that are worse. Not much of a defence in my view.

I think that the response to duffer’s knee-jerk defense is quite called for. Suggesting that Bush was hyper-aware of threats (if that is what “the intelligence sector aware of a problem before 9/11” means) flies in the face of what is known about Bush’s approach to the threat of terrorism before 9/11. Remember that Richard Clarke had great difficulty in getting this administration to demonstrate any concern about the problem, and that they put Cheney in charge of the White House task force on terrorism, and that terrorism task force never met before 9/11.

This adminstration actually stymied and delayed efforts that were underway to prepare for a terrorist attack, calling for redundant years of study and proposing that FEMA should head up the issue.


Bush handled the existing concerns about terrorism before 9/11 in the same manner that he handled the infamous August 6th PDB entitled “bin Laden determined to strike within the US” - he ignored it.

Suggesting that he probably wanted to engage in domestic surveillance before 9/11 out of some concern about terrorism ignores all evidence in favor of pure fantasy, and virtually requires that you have his sweaty ballsack dangling over your chin.

You mean the one they did a fullscale revision of in 1996?

I think I’ll stay out of the main fray, but I could hardly let that pass.

The simple answer is that all this stuff has been on a bureaucratic wish list for years (Clinton tried to push a lot of it through after the OKC bombing).

Even if one had a copy of Clinton’s “wish list” to provide some sort of evidence for this suggestion, quite simply, what prevented him from getting his wish if he did not? Respect for the rule of law, I would assume.

But I don’t buy the premise.

Yeah, it’s not as if Bush ran on a ‘make the bureaucrats happy’ ticket. Perhaps he did in secret, but that’s not usually a republican plank.

I agree.

I just felt insulted when duffer specifically asked me for more on my position, then ignores it outright, and posts vague, rambling glurge. I took it as a slight when maybe I shouldn’t have. I’ll be more carefull in the future.