No, it’s a pathetic fig-leaf of an excuse from an unabashed apologist.
If the president who signed the order had a “(D)” next to his name on the ballot, friend duffer would be fighting to be first to scream that this is another step in the one-world-UN-dominated-fascist-leftie-government-takeover scheme.
The point here that you miss is that the NSA has no business, under the law, monitoring any of us (read: Americans) -
My bolding.
Further, if you read the last two paragraphs of the article you would have seen this:
and yet that is exactly what they are trying to do here. Stop with the kneejerk defense of these guys duffer. I have a feeling there will be several prominent Repubs who will condemn this in the next few days. Bush and his ilk are a stain on this country and the Republican Party.
Nope, just waiting for the fall of the Republic the left has been warning about for over 4 years. Kinda like how the right warned of the fall years ago. Rhetoric is shallow as has been proven here. (Though I did buy into it back then.)
I’m no longer making any effort to defend Bush here. He’s pissing me off with things like immigration and expanding goverment spending on socialized medicine. I want him to pick one. Free drugs or tax cuts. I want both (as I’m sure we all do) but we can’t have both. Fucking pick one.
But monitoring phone calls of suspects? C’mon. Even the Times reports the people targeted are changing. They suspect someone, find them not to be a serious threat and move to the next.
They only have so many resources to ferret these fucks out. And I ask again. If Bush wanted to really quash free speech, why are so many of our lefties here? You all should be in an internment camp. Being so evil and you so public I can’t see why you still have access to a keyboard.
On the other hand, Reeder never made a return visit. :eek:
No…still missing the point. Yes the govenrment can wiretap suspects. SUSPECTS. Those they suspect of something and can make a case that they have reason to. Good reason to…the kind that would uphold a warrent. Bush is saying they don’t have to be held to those namby pamby kinds of standards.
All the more reason we shouldn’t be wasting them one someone the NSA can’t even make a case for.
Oh dear. So the only thing between us and gulag is Bush’s good will? Funny I thought it was the free society we’re a part of that holds our government accountable and calls them on it when they try to circumvent that. Like we are now.
Well, when I’m elected, expect broad changes with the respect to the citizen’s right to privacy.
Gulag? Hyperbole? Beuller?
It is a free society. That’s why you’re not in a gulag. Funny you mention gulag in some weak attempt to equate the two. You, and almost every Democrat, are allowed to say whatever you want short of a death threat. Sounds pretty oppressive.
If Bush wanted to quash dissident, don’t you think DU would have been shut down long ago? Don’t you think they would have gone after some of the most strident US Dopers here calling him Satan?
Bush isn’t out to turn into another Stalin. Ordering intensified security within the US border when we know there are thousands here that care nothing more than to kill you and me (and yes, the one’s they’re looking for want us both dead) doesn’t bother me too much.
The funny thing is, if DC ever does try to circumvent the basic freedoms, the majority that will fight them are those you rail against.
Republican/Democrat. To the guy on the street, IMO, they’re the same in wanting the best for the country. It’s the politicians and sound bites that are causing division. It’s gotten to the point of each trying to get the best commercial on the air.
It’s been a long struggle, but I’m really starting to see things outside the ads and rhetoric. I admit I’m not at an even balance yet, but I no longer swallow the bait before critizing it in my own mind.
But as long as I see Bush being called Satan by default, yes, I will try to defend him when I can. For 8 years I was taught that I should look at both sides of an issue before making a judgement.
Can you do the same?
My lord what ARE you on about?
I said “gulag” in response to what only you have brought up: “If Bush wanted to really quash free speech, why are so many of our lefties here? You all should be in an internment camp.”
I didn’t say he wanted to send us there. You (again: “If Bush wanted to quash dissident, don’t you think DU would have been shut down long ago? Don’t you think they would have gone after some of the most strident US Dopers here calling him Satan?”) are the one who’s saying it’s only a matter of his benevolence that keeps us out.
I thought that was a strange thing to say so I addressed it.
No one is calling him Stalin, or Satan (except you). We’re talking about his caviler attitude to governmental accountability.
My point is as I said:
I addressed your point (such as it was). Care to stop frothing at the mouth and address mine?
What a bizarre headline. Bush authorized NSA to spy in the US???
As if NSA has been chomping at the bit for decades, lobbying heavily to be allowed to completely abandon the mission it was created for and instead do the FBI’s job, because NSA hates Americans’ civil liberties? It is to laugh.
Reading the article it becomes apparent that contrary to the headline, Bush actually commanded the NSA to eavesdrop under a special program created by the Bush administration. Wow, that almost sounds slightly different than what the headline indicated.
And NSA balked! But but but wait a minute, wasn’t it the evil NSA’s nefarious plan all along? It wasn’t?!! Is there no truth in headline writing anymore?
In any case, a very poorly written article.
…different from, not different than
Are you Jeb Bush?
Because “gulag” is one of them Lefy Words that aren’t allowed to be uttered. Don’t you remember the US Congressman that dared to use that word in association with the actions of the US Government and US Troops? The little (D) makes all the difference.
Now, if you refer to it as an ‘internment camp’ or ‘vacation resort for political prisoners’ that is totally different.
It’s nice to see duffer trying to reclaim his crown from CH and his other peers.
-Joe
If you want to get a feel for how objective the defense of Bush’s “spy on Americans without warrants” policy for the NSA is, imagine the outcry from the right if Clinton had attempted any such thing. You’d be able to hear the howling from the moon.
duffer, I know you’re not stupid, so I can only assume you’re wilfully resisting addressing, or even acknowledging, the basic concepts being discussed here:
Checks and balances.
Constitutional protections against the power of the government.
Warrants issued by a court based on probable cause.
The President doesn’t get to ignore that stuff. He’s not a fucking king, even though the current one has joked about how he’d like to be a dictator, and said “There ought to be limits to freedom” because a website made fun of him (and because he’s a whiny bitch).
The President isn’t ignoring anything. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on an overseas phone call. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t require a warrant when there is no expectation of privacy.
Really? It seems reasonable to me.
Knowing that the call is going to a foreign country that has no Fourth Amendment rights, and can legally be monitored by officials in that foreign country?
Why would you think your call was private under those circumstances?
What if I’m calling a country that has more robust privacy laws than the US?
Count this among the phrases I’d never thought I’d read. What’s next? “How insightful, New Iskander…”?
Then I think you’d have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Well, it took less than 24 hours for hearings to be announced. And by a Republican no less. Here ya go.
I told you I smelled’em.