Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

In regard to this so-called domestic spying...Follow

#1 Dec 20 2005 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,160 posts
...yes, I am aware that there are other threads that have discussed this topic. But what I have not seen and what I believe is important that has not been said is that this type of "spying" has been done all through the '90s under a super-secret program named "Echelon." And, yes, for those who are keeping score (Shadowrelm, this is you) this occurred under the Clinton watch.

Am I blaming Clinton for doing this? No. If anything, I blame Bush for openly discussing what has been a matter of course for our intelligence community to keep tabs on threats to our open society.

Are there dangers associated with this kind of governmental watchfulness? Obviously yes. However, is it more dangerous than the threat posed by enemies who have already demonstrated that they will go much further than political discussion and begin comandeering airplanes or producing WMD? I submit to you that that is a far greater threat to your personal freedoms and security than a program which has a large system of checks and balances in place to prevent abuses.

Look, in a vacuum the fact that the government is waching your emails and listening to your phone conversations is a scary thing. But we don't live in a vacuum. We live in a world where if there was no oversight of the threats which surround us were not dealt with, the open society in which live would have ceased to exist decades ago. So instead we implement a system which monitors these enemies and puts in place a series of limiters that prevent a fallable governmental process from going too far.

It seems like a fair trade-off to me.

Totem
#2 Dec 20 2005 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent


Maybe it is a fair trade off to you, but it is most certainly not to me. How many terrorist attacks to do think have been thwarted by this program? I don't think you can say it is a good idea without knowing that. I sincerly don't understand this idea of "let them infringe on my liberties, I'll be safer." Are you? What if they wanted to take away your right to bear arms in the interest of making you safer, would you agree to that?

Cite for this "Echelon" program?

I want to know why the NYT sat on this for so long. This, the Plame crap/Judith Miller, how much did they know and withold during election season?

#3 Dec 20 2005 at 11:02 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

oh yeah



but Bush still sucks





and yes, that Echelon thing is real, cause I knew somone that was affiliated with it, or visited it, or saw the complex in England or somthing...

Edited, Tue Dec 20 11:05:55 2005 by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#4 Dec 20 2005 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I wasn't crazy about Echelon/Carnivore either.

Am I allowed to complain now?
Quote:
a program which has a large system of checks and balances in place to prevent abuses.
I think many would be happier if Bush used those checks and balances, a la FISA, rather than claim authority to avoid them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Dec 20 2005 at 11:07 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Bringing in Clinton, terrorists threats, WMD, references to 9/11, trying to justify what is un-american by using fear and saying the other guy did it to.

This thread reaks of desperation.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#6 Dec 20 2005 at 11:08 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
I think many would be happier if Bush used those checks and balances, a la FISA, rather than claim authority to avoid them.



I find it funny that he's throwing such a tantrum over the rejection of the Patriot Act renewal, despite the fact that he claims to have the authority to not even need it anyway.

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#7 Dec 20 2005 at 11:12 AM Rating: Good
The person who leake the information needs to be tried for high treason. Disclosing intelligence information to a foreign government is bad enough. To disclose it to the press so that it is sure to be known by everyone places all of us at greater danger. People who **** and moan about government "spying" on it's citizens really do miss the big picture. I for one am all for it. Of course, my name's not Abdul, so I'm good.
#8 Dec 20 2005 at 11:13 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,160 posts
Moreover, there was an ATF program (whose name escapes me at the moment, but it starts with "A") in the '80's which did the same thing as what Echelon has been doing since then, just with more primitive technology.

Think of it this way: Bush is being exactly what you want in a politician-- honest. He has come right out and said what our government is doing rather than keeping it under wraps and in accordance with your worst fears concerning Big Brother.

Totem
#9 Dec 20 2005 at 11:14 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
I for one am all for it. Of course, my name's not Abdul, so I'm good.


Smiley: lol
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#10 Dec 20 2005 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
... Of course, my name's not Abdul, so I'm good.


I wonder if they have been taping Paula Abdul nekked.
#11 Dec 20 2005 at 11:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem wrote:
Bush is being exactly what you want in a politician-- honest. He has come right out and said what our government is doing rather than keeping it under wraps and in accordance with your worst fears concerning Big Brother.
Bush came right out and told us? Wow.. which papers have you been reading? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Dec 20 2005 at 11:20 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,160 posts
I'm taking a left turn at Albuquerque with this thread.

I just find it humorous that those who complain most loudly about governmental intrusion into their lives are generally the same ones who claim that things like the Super Bowl stunt with Janet Jackson's breast are not in any way just an intrusion of another sort.

Ok. Back to your regularly scheduled political debate.

Totem
#13REDACTED, Posted: Dec 20 2005 at 11:23 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What do you expect from a liberal media that has a visceral hatred for Bush and all Republicans. They could care less about national security so long as the Dems regain political power.
#14 Dec 20 2005 at 11:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I find it humorous that people who hate cell phone in theatres don't mind milk being sold in gas stations!

Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Dec 20 2005 at 11:25 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Jophiel, Bush announced it at a press conference this past week while discussing the Patriot Act. And yes, he came right out and spoke of it. Have you not been watching the news? Everyone in his administration has been defending his use of it all weeekend, from Condi on Meet the Press to the Attorney General holding a meeting with the press discussing this very issue.

Totem
#16 Dec 20 2005 at 11:27 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
Everyone in his administration has been defending his use of it all weeekend, from Condi on Meet the Press to the Attorney General holding a meeting with the press discussing this very issue.



Smiley: laugh

I hope you're trying to be funny, I can't tell with you
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#17 Dec 20 2005 at 11:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem wrote:
Jophiel, Bush announced it at a press conference this past week while discussing the Patriot Act. And yes, he came right out and spoke of it.
After the story already broke. And he's been having kittens saying "Reporting this was a terrible breach" ever since.

The president said he supports a Justice Department investigation into the disclosure of the spying--first reported late last week in The New York Times. He raised his voice and furled his brow as he expressed his displeasure with whoever leaked word of the program.

"It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war," Bush said. "The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."
-- AP

Maybe you and I just have very different defintions of "came right out and said it"...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Dec 20 2005 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
<rolls eyes>

Backatcha, Jo. Don't let me interrupt your Lefty daydreams of having your nose buried in Al Qaeda pubes.

Totem
#19 Dec 20 2005 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Why didn't he get this angry over Plame?
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#20 Dec 20 2005 at 11:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem wrote:
Backatcha, Jo. Don't let me interrupt your Lefty daydreams of having your nose buried in Al Qaeda pubes.
Awww..

You were mean to me so now I'm sad.

Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Dec 20 2005 at 11:36 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Precisely. He came right out and acknowledged that the government is doing it. The normal respose is to stonewall and deny that anything of the sort is being done, and by-the-by, where did the Justice Dept. get such a crazy idea that we're spying on you?

No, he admitted that it was being done, had been done, and will continue to be done. Which, is exactly what has been the US' policy for decades.

Totem
#22 Dec 20 2005 at 11:41 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
I'm just not too keen on a president that can bypass the law wehnever it doesn't suit suit him.

It has been a constant that I have seen in this administration. If they don't like the rule, the break it or try to change it.


on that note, SHOULD the Attorney General be such butt-buddies with the President?

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#23 Dec 20 2005 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem wrote:
Precisely. He came right out and acknowledged that the government is doing it.
After we were told the government was doing it Smiley: laugh

There's no reason to assume it wouldn't be "under wraps" today had it not been leaked by the media. Quite the open admission, indeed!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Dec 20 2005 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
The story was actually written over a year ago.

The NYTimes was asked to bury it by the Whitehouse but they shuffled it off to the side and did some further investigating and released it now after omitting some stuff that could be viewed as security breaches.

Really the NYTimes article (all 5 pages of it) linked in the other thread was quite enlightening such as the fact that only 500 people can be spied on at any one time etc. I might not even view the program in such a bad light however as Kelvy noted its just another example of the problem.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#25 Dec 20 2005 at 12:12 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
So to be fair, you people who dislike the present administration spying on you aren't just angry about the president doing this, but are upset that this has been happening since at least the 80's, right?

Just making sure your angst is well distributed...

Totem
#26 Dec 20 2005 at 12:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I already said as much. I don't see where that's a defense here, though unless we're resorting to "But.. but... he did it years ago, too!".

The administrations from the 80's and 90's aren't currently answerable to the public and to Congress in the same manner as the current one.

Quick! Make mention of Lincoln suspending habus corpus! Everyone loves Lincoln so that's sure to make this okay!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 274 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (274)