[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
There was no war yet – now what will their excuse be?
[/QUOTE]
[Bushbot]
We’ve been at war since the first WTC attack, it’s just that Slick Willy Clinton was too busy getting blowjobs to properly prosecute that war.
[/Bushbot]
The spin. It still writes itself.
And look at all the power you’ve cheerfully handed her!
-Joe
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
Wait…it was conceived (though not implemented) a year prior to 2001? During the previous presidency?!?
[/QUOTE]
I’m all for a full, open investigation, and let the chips fall where they may.
I doubt I’ll get anything remotely resembling my wish. 
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
There was no war yet – now what will their excuse be?
[/QUOTE]
National security, perhaps?
Your view on this subject depends on whether you are self-deluded enough to believe that the government gives a shit about what you say on the phone.
Data-mining for key words is not a new concept and it’s not going away.
Yes, yes, people can use code words to fool the computers, they can’t listen to everything, it’ll only be a matter of weeks before you have to ask their permission to piss, etc.
If you are of the mindset that the government is just doing “big brother snooping” instead of trying to protect you, then you will always find something to fan your scandalized brow over.
[QUOTE=11811]
I come at it from the other direction: it was bad enough that Bush wanted to spy on US phone calls after 9/11, but his initial desire to spy now seems like just a fishing expedition with no cause.
[/QUOTE]
I can see him in a closet now with headphones on and his penis in his hand.
“They’re ordering pizza…and I can hear them! Heh heh heh”
You’ve hit the nail on the head. There is nothing going on in the real world that would require monitoring of communication. It’s all “Bush wants to spy.”
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
As Kagro X pointed out over at The Great Orange Satan, another implication of this, if true, is that they were already doing all this highfalutin’ illegal surveillance for several months before 9/11 and it failed to stop 9/11.
[/QUOTE]
You, me and 300 million other people don’t know what was prevented and what wasn’t. It’s quite easy to sit back and make grand pronouncements about what “they” know and what “they” do…but the fact is you don’t know unless you have the keycard to be in the room.
The government is certainly not going to tell the public “Hey, we prevented this! And here’s how!” That would expose methods and, more than likely, ongoing investigations.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
You, me and 300 million other people don’t know what was prevented and what wasn’t. It’s quite easy to sit back and make grand pronouncements about what “they” know and what “they” do…but the fact is you don’t know unless you have the keycard to be in the room.
The government is certainly not going to tell the public “Hey, we prevented this! And here’s how!” That would expose methods and, more than likely, ongoing investigations.
[/QUOTE]
Well, one thing’s for damn sure: they didn’t prevent 9/11.
What else the wiretapping program might or might not have prevented, who knows? But IT DID NOT PREVENT 9/11. If it had, then neither you, any other poster, or even I, would even know WTF I meant by that last sentence!
[QUOTE=Evil One]
You, me and 300 million other people don’t know what was prevented and what wasn’t. It’s quite easy to sit back and make grand pronouncements about what “they” know and what “they” do…but the fact is you don’t know unless you have the keycard to be in the room.
The government is certainly not going to tell the public “Hey, we prevented this! And here’s how!” That would expose methods and, more than likely, ongoing investigations.
[/QUOTE]
If they had prevented something, they would have told us about it. Why? Because this Administration likes to brag. When they got a copy of the latest Bin Laden video before it was released, due to security flaws in AQ’s system, they promptly “leaked” the video to the media (starting with Fox News, of course). AQ immediately figured out they had a problem and patched it, thus closing off a source of potential information for the US government. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re not merely boned, we’re fucking boned, it seems.
The FBI/CIA has been tapping our phone lines even before 9/11? I am shocked. What’s next? Reports that they surveilled air travelers prior to 9/11?
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Well, one thing’s for damn sure: they didn’t prevent 9/11.
[/QUOTE]
You are absolutely right.
Don’t get me wrong here…I don’t like the idea of someone listening to my phone conversations without justification either. I just simply don’t think it happens. The FISA court, wiretapping warrants and other safeguards are in place.
Could it still be going on outside those parameters? Maybe. I don’t know. But like I said, I just can’t bring myself to believe that the government would use millions of dollars worth of equipment and time to listen to me at random. Why would they? I don’t have the ego or the paranoia to believe that I am in the middle of a big conspiracy.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
If they had prevented something, they would have told us about it. Why? Because this Administration likes to brag.
[/QUOTE]
Rather than bragging, they may be pointing out the inconvienient fact to some people that terrorists actually exist.
Or they could be bragging…by taking advantage of success by pointing out some plots that have been prevented once the investigatory value of them had been exhausted. If I had to put up with a steady drumbeat of clueless people screaming through my gate, the temptation to show them that they are wrong would be almost overwhelming.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
When they got a copy of the latest Bin Laden video before it was released, due to security flaws in AQ’s system, they promptly “leaked” the video to the media (starting with Fox News, of course). AQ immediately figured out they had a problem and patched it, thus closing off a source of potential information for the US government.
[/QUOTE]
This is why I would like to see leaks prosecuted as national security breaches. All of them. Whatever administration they come from and whatever the justification.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
You are absolutely right.
Don’t get me wrong here…I don’t like the idea of someone listening to my phone conversations without justification either. I just simply don’t think it happens. The FISA court, wiretapping warrants and other safeguards are in place.
Could it still be going on outside those parameters? Maybe. I don’t know. But like I said, I just can’t bring myself to believe that the government would use millions of dollars worth of equipment and time to listen to me at random. Why would they? I don’t have the ego or the paranoia to believe that I am in the middle of a big conspiracy.
[/QUOTE]
Well, they sure as shit didn’ have any problems dodging the FISA court after 9/11, what makes you so certain that they wouldn’t do that before 9/11?
And no, they’re probably not listening in on your conversations, but what if they were (illegally) listening in on the conversations of Democratic party leaders? Or high profile individuals who’d said things that the Administration didn’t like? If that ain’t subverting our democracy, I don’t know what is?
Many of us are on record as saying that “Tricky Dick” was a better President than the Shrubmeister and we know how paranoid that bastard was.
Not all of them should be, however, as leaks can serve as a useful policy tool. Unsure of how the public will react to something? “Leak” details of it as a trial balloon and see what happens. In the case of Valerie Plame and this instance, however, we clearly have leaks which sacrificed national security in the name of ultimately meaningless political points.
Remember, in the build up to Iraq 2.0, they kept saying, “We’ve got information proving that Saddam’s got/working on WMDs, but we can’t tell you about it because it would compromise intelligence programs.” That turned out to be a big, fucking lie. As did Rummy’s claims that we knew exactly where the WMDs were. (So, why didn’t bomb those sites or drop troops in there first?)
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
And no, they’re probably not listening in on your conversations, but what if they were (illegally) listening in on the conversations of Democratic party leaders? Or high profile individuals who’d said things that the Administration didn’t like?
[/QUOTE]
This is the kind of hollywood stereotype behavior I’m talking about. How many people do you think would be involved in something like this? Twenty? Fifty? How many of them would be career NSA types without alligence to party or administration and not willing to risk jail?
Just like Watergate, if someone were caught doing this, I would be the first to throw them under the chariot wheels of justice.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Not all of them should be, however, as leaks can serve as a useful policy tool. Unsure of how the public will react to something? “Leak” details of it as a trial balloon and see what happens. In the case of Valerie Plame and this instance, however, we clearly have leaks which sacrificed national security in the name of ultimately meaningless political points.
[/QUOTE]
So a leak is OK if it has the proper ideological pedigree? The only fair way to deal with leaks is to enforce the law. Leakers need to be prosecuted, no matter who they are or why they leak.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
This is the kind of hollywood stereotype behavior I’m talking about. How many people do you think would be involved in something like this? Twenty? Fifty? How many of them would be career NSA types without alligence to party or administration and not willing to risk jail?
[/QUOTE]
Dunno about the NSA, but the DOJ apparently can be drafted into partisan crimes.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Dunno about the NSA, but the DOJ apparently can be drafted into partisan crimes.
[/QUOTE]
And if the investigation uncovers illegal behavior, I hope those involved are prosecuted. I don’t care who they are or how high up it goes.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
This is the kind of hollywood stereotype behavior I’m talking about. How many people do you think would be involved in something like this? Twenty? Fifty? How many of them would be career NSA types without alligence to party or administration and not willing to risk jail?
[/quote]
Of course, we run into the problem where the career types can be run out because they can’t stomach the ineptitude of the political appointees and how they’re ruining things, and can thus be replaced by lackies who’ll do whatever they’re told, no questions asked. IIRC, that seems to be a big problem with this Administration in a number of areas.
Don’t believe I said you wouldn’t. I’d like to think that at least 90% of all Dopers, no matter their party affiliation would say the same thing if it came up when their party was in power.
Who is harmed if it’s leaked that the President is thinking of changing how Social Security is handled or painting the White House blue? There are varying degrees of crime, and there are even cases where prosecutors will decline to prosecute a crime because the prosecution doesn’t serve any purpose. And if someone leaked information to the press which indicated that the President (any President) was planning on engaging in highly illegal and unconstitutional activities, do you think that the leaker in that case should be prosecuted, even after the President and his cronies are removed from office and jailed? (That they’d be prosecuted while that particular President is in office is a given.) After all, they my have violated the law against leaking, but they certainly didn’t break the oath they took to uphold the Constitution.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
Your view on this subject depends on whether you are self-deluded enough to believe that the government gives a shit about what you say on the phone.
[/QUOTE]
So if it doesn’t happen to involve me, personally, I just shouldn’t care? What if it happens to, say, a political candidate whose views I happen to support? Am I allowed to care about that?
I’m of the mindset that “the government” is made up of people with human foibles, who will always be tempted to abuse whatever power we grant them. Which is why oversight is so fucking important.
Keeping the government out of people’s lives used to be a conservative value - when did that stop?
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Don’t believe I said you wouldn’t.
[/QUOTE]
You didn’t. I was just making it clear that that I would not condone such behavior.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
And if someone leaked information to the press which indicated that the President (any President) was planning on engaging in highly illegal and unconstitutional activities, do you think that the leaker in that case should be prosecuted, even after the President and his cronies are removed from office and jailed?
[/QUOTE]
No, in that case the leaker needs a medal. Unless they are leaking classified information, which would require a review and at least a token prosecution in my view. When I talk about prosecuting leakers, I am referring to those who release classified information and harm national security in the process.
If in the view of the law, the Plame leakers exposed classified information, they should be prosecuted. So should those who have leaked classified information regarding the money tracking and electronic surveillance programs.
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
And look at all the power you’ve cheerfully handed her!
-Joe
[/QUOTE]
What power have I handed her?
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
What power have I handed her?
[/QUOTE]
Not you but the Pubs generally. I believe Merijeek was referring to the unprecedented expansion of the power of the presidency under the Bush Administration, pursuant to the “unitary executive” theory and, even more, to sheer brazenness. Unless and until Congress acts vigorously to reverse all that, every bit of it will presumably pass into the hands of the next administration, which might well be Hillary’s.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Not you but the Pubs generally. I believe Merijeek was referring to the unprecedented expansion of the power of the presidency under the Bush Administration, pursuant to the “unitary executive” theory and, even more, to sheer brazenness. Unless and until Congress acts vigorously to reverse all that, every bit of it will presumably pass into the hands of the next administration, which might well be Hillary’s.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, got it. Thanks for the clarification. The current Congress doesn’t have the balls to do much of anything, so yeah, you guys are probably right.