Well, I can’t say I’m suprised about this. Thank goodness somebody in the intelligence community has enough of a conscience to talk to reporters.
Bush Said to Let U.S. Tap Calls Without Courts
From the article:
What a bunch of lowlife bastards these guys are.
Feingold in '08.
You know what scares a lot of people around my family?
The next time we elect a President, I can legally be elected.
Are you throwing your hat into the ring?
Sure. After all, I could probably do it better than SOME current sitting Presidents.
How exactly does the procedure start? Where do I begin?
Plural?
Which country do you live in?
:smack:
I keep forgetting that Cheney isn’t REALLY surgically attached to Bush.
I may move to Iraq. I hear they have a democracy there.
The folks saying that are the same guys doing the stuff in the OP…
That is the only way to defend Amerca from the radical militant librarians that hate freedom in America:
Better hurry. I hear freedom’s on the march. By the time you get there, it may be gone.
I’m not here to defend Bush. I’m not a big fan of this, but I hardly see it as the sky-is-falling that other’s will. So the government listens in on calls? Guess what? So do some of your neighbors.
Yes, they do. You can go to Radio Shack and get a trunking scanner that will pick up virtually any conversation from a cordless phone. It’s legal and available to anyone. This seems a bit more targeted. I have to seriously doubt any of us fine, upstanding Dopers are even a remote candidate for this happening to us.
And yes. I know Bush is out to eat your children and lock you up for dissent. It’s just hard to ignore how many of you are still here posting that he wants to end free speech and execute dissidents. Hyperbole? Nah, not when it comes to Bush. By the way, what is Rockefeller doing other than getting press?
Calm down. Your phone call is more likely to be picked up by your neighbor. And if you think the government listening in on you is anything new, I have some oceanfront land in North Dakota you may be interested in. Your internet provider has been tracking damn near every keystroke since the '90’s.
Wait. Bush wasn’t President back then. Hmmm.
Maybe I am mistaken, but I don’t think that my internet provider is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States of America from keeping track of my messages. The U.S. government is forbidden except under very specific circumstances. We are not talking about those circumstances; we are talking about exceptions to those circumstances.
My neighbor is not as powerful as the federal government. He can do harm to me personally, of course. But he can’t erode the civil rights of an entire democracy.
Thanks for saying it for me Zoe.
In the article, several govt. officials express concern about the legality of this enterprise. I found this particularly telling:
and this
really startled me. This was such a questionable operation that the N.S.A. guys were nervous about it? It may just be me, but I smell a Senate investigation.
This is an argument? How many debates have we had here where someone talks about something being a first admendment violation and someone else making the pertinent point that only if the government does it is a first admendment violation. Because we hold the government to particular standards we don’t necessarilly hold private citizens to. Why? Because the government has the power. C’mon, you don’t really need this explained to you do you?
THIS is an argument??? I should worry about my government violating people’s rights because it probably won’t happen to me? As long as it doesn’t happen to fine upstanding people? (Never mind that it does and those librarians and Quakers are in all likelyhood more fine and upstanding than I’ll ever be.)
Ah, so concern over government monitoring and possible suppression of free speech is nothing by hyperbole, at least till he’s locked all of up up. Er, might be a little late then.
Oh Christ, take a breath. If you can show me the NSA is monitoring all our phone calls, and internet transmissions, and anything else you can think of, I’ll lead the march to DC.
There is a need for more aggressive patrol. The NSA, as much as some like to think, is not out to take down anyone protesting the government. Neither is Bush nor the Evil Republicans. You may not like the social policies, but this doesn’t equate to gay marriage or health care or even education. It’s about national security. Anyone care to tell me where we went wrong with those kind-hearted fellows in Buffalo?
More important. Can anyone cite some cases where this issue has destroyed innocents?
Listening in on phone calls by a civilian isn’t a concern? You don’t ever get to mention the name Linda Tripp. You really think holding a government job is the only way you can harm someone with the information obtained from a phone call?
Not unless there is a change in power in November 2006.
Bullshit. If there was any leadership in the Dem Sens there would be such an outcry of abuse that hearings would be held next week. They aren’t a 1:4 minority. They have enough votes to force the issue. Now, do they have the leadership to make some noise? We’ll see.
The article is in tomorrow’s (Friday) paper. I guess we will see, won’t we? It went online around 10:30 PM CST.
I hear ya tomndebb but given the spine the House showed this week by siding with Maverick McCain on the torture issue and the way the White House more or less caved, I have a feeling a fair number of the Repubs in Congress are getting tired of all the Bush (CHENEY) nonsense.
Or at least worried about those November elections.
It’s not till they’re monitoring ALL of us that you’ll take notice? Would be a little late as I said. And no one is saying they are…the OP is saying they’re monitoring thousands (and here’s the slightly important part) WITHOUT A WARRENT.
Yes, as a matter of national security we need aggressive patrols. And monitoring phones and internet etc. is what I’d expect them to do. But when they do they have to make a case for why they should. Hence the warrent.
Now, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that they do this without a warrent on their own. I wouldn’t be happy but I wouldn’t be surprised. But for the President to come out and say he doesn’t think they have to make a case for why they’re doing this…that they don’t have to account to anyone when they do…you don’t see any problem with that? The accountabiltiy of the govenment is a pretty basic part of a free society.
No, let’s wait till some are, shall we?
Who said it wasn’t? it’s not what we’re talking about. You’re the one who brought it up.