bush violated the law

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

With the new admission that the bush administration eavesdrop on
American citizens without a prior judicial approval means bush
violated the law. There is no other interpretation. The laws
they violated, were put into place after the years of abuse by
agencies such as the FBI. You can read about how hoover via
surveillance would collect files on Americans such as actors,
musicians, politicians, on the net. It is not hard to find.
The code name was COINTELPRO for the FBI.

Once again we see this administration for what it is.
This administration believes in torture. This administration believes
in holding American citizens for years without due process.
This administration believes in taking away your rights as american
citizens. Welcome to the 4th reich.

Kropotkin

2

Not that a sissy, hands-off, be polite to everyone administration would be effective. Or we could hold people only after they’ve been convicted twice and give them an unlimited number of appeals. That makes a great judicial system. And we can have so many rights, that everyone must live in fear (or not, see line above) of breaking one of them every 10 seconds.

Now, I’m not giving a definite stance as to the Bush admin regarding these situations as I don’t have enough insight to fully judge these things. Haven’t been keeping up on my reading of late. Course I don’t think ANY American gov’t would give me enough info regarding these to fully see it for what it actually was.

But, the big question. Do you just sit around and try to find this stuff? I can’t believe that all these things just happen across you. Would you mind providing the link to these claims you see? Or where you heard them? But I mean, why spend so much energy, why devote so much time to complaining about the government when its not going to change it right now. I don’t mind politicking for future advent but Bush can’t get reelected and he’s not getting booted before his term is up. And I can handle amounts of complaint, I’ve done it myself, but devoting this much of your time and energy just seems silly.

3

Peter, Bush is not pulling a Joe McCarthy, if anything he as publically called for tolerence of Islam. In contrast the red scare nailed many innocent individuals. How many inncent Muslims have been nailed? Yes, some probably have, but nothing like what occured during during the 50’s.

During Hoover’s reign, we did feel threatened by communism, as the manifesto calls for total world subjegation to communism, sounds familiar doesn’t it.

Also, FDR did much worse by incarerating Japanese American citizens during WWII, and the FBI and CIA did conduct survellience during WWI, WWII, Korean War, and all our other wars.The difference between Hoover and FDR was the fact we were engaged in an armed struggle, as we are today, and during Hoover’s reign, there was a Cold War and an arms race, not a Hot War.

I would rather have Bush wire tap my phone, read my emails, check my bank records, go to sleep, and those of other suspects, than risk thousands of U.S. dead, or a dirty bomb or have a kamakazee fly a nuke into one of our major cities and detonate it.

Many liberals screamed regarding the WWI and WWII draft leading us to a police state. After the war, did a police state occur? No. Security changes during a time of threat. How would you feel if Bush and company did not tap us, and there are probably many Islamic fanatic sleeper cells in the U.S. as many as 1,000 is the estimate, and some of these in the cells are U.S. citizen, born here, but with strong connections to Islamic fanaticism. That is their allegiance is to Islam, Islamic law, and not the secular U.S. society.

What Bush is doing, has previously occured under Democrats during a time of war as well.

Before you respond, remember, I never voted for Bush and neither did my significant other. I believe he is corrupt right down to his last molecule and so are Rummy, Cheney, etc. But then, I view Clinton, Teddy Kennedy in the same light, remember Chappaquideck and the cover-up. He let that poor girl down and was more worried about himself than the girl.

4

Your disgusting rhetoric alienates any reasonable person who might want to be open-minded and listen to your message. You may be right, I haven’t been keeping up in the news, but why don’t you work on your delivery a bit. More references and evidence, less ridiculous and inflammatory rhetoric. You might find more listening ears.

5

All I have to add to this discussion is this little gem:

The 4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Bush can shove both this spying policy and the Patriot Act up his ass.

6

I’m not overly into politics at all… and I heard about this more times than I could shake a stick at. Then again… I guess that’s the difference between american and canadian news :wink:

7

Smells like big brother will be paying america a visit soon…

F has got it down…

2 party system=retarted

8

Is it just me or are American Liberals (among others) so scared and narrow minded that EVERY act by the government to tighten security or strengthen the powers of the justice authorities is accused of being ‘a step on the road to a police state’? The same thing happens over here in the UK.

Personally I think everyone who makes such farcical claims should be sent to a real police state for 6 months, by force if necessary.

Oh yes, Big Brother is watching, which is why you can sit in a coffee shop shouting ignorantly that Big Brother is watching and NOTHING HAPPENS…

As to whether PK ‘happened’ upon this or went looking for it (he does just sit around looking for another cheap reason to slag off the Bush admin.) I’ll leave you to your own views.

As to the passage cited from the US constitution - it all depends on what you take ‘reasonable’ to mean. As ever, the definition of reasonable suspicion is made by the justice authorities and security services. And to be honest, do you (FtheNaysayers or any others who agree) consider yourself to be in a better position than the police, military, CIA and so on regarding what constitutes a reasonable suspicion?

I wouldn’t have thought so…

9

He’s right, you know.

And don’t forget, everyone, we’re only 45 minutes away from being attacked. And that is still a viable threat, as the ‘police, military, CIA and so on’ still haven’t found the huge stockpile of weapons they know that Saddam had.

And as for Brazillians, what do they expect if they are going walk briskly onto a tube after peak time wearing a denim jacket when it’s nearly warm.

So come on guys, let’s all admit our secret services are just wonderful!

10

Oh, I have absolutely no doubt that some do just happen across him, I watch the news and see some of this stuff. However, his so frequent ability to come up with something new that the Bush admin has done is remarkable and I can’t believe that it all just shows up.

Too many coincedences…

11

DING DING DING DING DING DING
We have a winner!!!

This has got to be probably the most accurate statement I have heard (read) in the last month. Maybe longer than that.

Between this and SIATD’s post, there’s probably nothing left for me to say that needs saying. Although, it’s amazing how many times I can be proven wrong.

12

Peter Kropotkin: "With the new admission that the bush administration eavesdrop on
American citizens without a prior judicial approval means bush
violated the law. There is no other interpretation. The laws
they violated, were put into place after the years of abuse by
agencies such as the FBI. You can read about how hoover via
surveillance would collect files on Americans such as actors,
musicians, politicians, on the net. It is not hard to find.
The code name was COINTELPRO for the FBI.

Once again we see this administration for what it is.
This administration believes in torture. This administration believes
in holding American citizens for years without due process.
This administration believes in taking away your rights as american
citizens. Welcome to the 4th reich".

Aspacia: Peter, Bush is not pulling a Joe McCarthy, if anything he as publically called for tolerence of Islam. In contrast the red scare nailed many innocent individuals. How many inncent Muslims have been nailed? Yes, some probably have, but nothing like what occured during during the 50’s.

K: Oh, its ok if we torture a few, imprison a few for years without their
rights because hay, it only a few of them, not as many as many
as during the red scare. So if its a few people, then its ok?
The constitution won’t be damaged if we just ignore it for a few
people. I mean whats the harm?
The harm is we have abandon the constitution.
Just flush it down the toilet, it means nothing, it has no
value if it does not apply to every single American.
To judge that person is covered by the constitution but that
one is not, by executive fiat is tyranny". That is the entire basis of
both the declaration and the constitution, to prevent tyranny in the
U.S.

A: During Hoover’s reign, we did feel threatened by communism, as the manifesto calls for total world subjegation to communism, sounds familiar doesn’t it.

K: the question is not how threatened we feel, the question is what
we do about it. I don’t think flushing the constitution down the drain is
the solution.

A: Also, FDR did much worse by incarerating Japanese American citizens during WWII, and the FBI and CIA did conduct survellience during WWI, WWII, Korean War, and all our other wars.The difference between Hoover and FDR was the fact we were engaged in an armed struggle, as we are today, and during Hoover’s reign, there was a Cold War and an arms race, not a Hot War.

K: You can’t seriously compare this “war” with WW II. This was a manufactured war. I am still waiting for WMD’S. WW II was whole
countries. This so called war is about 5000 people vs the west.
Saddam had nothing to do with osama. There was no connection
between terrorism and Iraq. They were two separate things.
Only in bush’s twisted fucked up mind could combine those two.

A: I would rather have Bush wire tap my phone, read my emails, check my bank records, go to sleep, and those of other suspects, than risk thousands of U.S. dead, or a dirty bomb or have a kamakazee fly a nuke into one of our major cities and detonate it.

K: Benjamin Franklin quote: Any society that would give up a little
liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Congratulations. You have neither security nor liberty. How does it feel?

A: “Many liberals screamed regarding the WWI and WWII draft leading us to a police state. After the war, did a police state occur? No. Security changes during a time of threat. How would you feel if Bush and company did not tap us, and there are probably many Islamic fanatic sleeper cells in the U.S. as many as 1,000 is the estimate, and some of these in the cells are U.S. citizen, born here, but with strong connections to Islamic fanaticism. That is their allegiance is to Islam, Islamic law, and not the secular U.S. society”.

K: You yourself brought up the point of mccarthyism after WW II.
Coincidence? I don’t think so. And then so what, if the Islamic fanatics
have their allegiance to Islam? Christian funndies have their allegiance
to a christian god. It is not about allegiance to any god. It is about
power. "

A: What Bush is doing, has previously occurred under Democrats during a time of war as well.

K: oh, so a bank robber can make the defense of, Its ok, because
john Dillinger robbed banks too. The “I am just following in someones
elses shoes defense” does not make it any more right the second time.

A: Before you respond, remember, I never voted for Bush and neither did my significant other. I believe he is corrupt right down to his last molecule and so are Rummy, Cheney, etc. But then, I view Clinton, Teddy Kennedy in the same light, remember Chappaquideck and the cover-up. He let that poor girl down and was more worried about himself than the girl."

K: Corruption doesn’t get any more acceptable because others
have done it. I am old enough to remember Chappaquideck and
so what? What bush is doing is not a personal failing as in
kennedy, but a systematic destruction of the constitution.

Kropotkin

13

SKY: But, the big question. Do you just sit around and try to find this stuff? I can’t believe that all these things just happen across you. Would you mind providing the link to these claims you see? Or where you heard them? But I mean, why spend so much energy, why devote so much time to complaining about the government when its not going to change it right now. I don’t mind politicking for future advent but Bush can’t get reelected and he’s not getting booted before his term is up. And I can handle amounts of complaint, I’ve done it myself, but devoting this much of your time and energy just seems silly.

K: I actually pay attention to the world. What bush has done is
violated his constitutional duties to obey and defend the constitution.
He has committed a impeachable offense. Not the phony baloney one
Clinton did, but a certifiable impeachable offense. Bush has committed
the single greatest crime against the constitution that has ever, EVER,
been committed against the constitution. Both FDR and Lincoln reacted
passively to events, bush is actively pushing his agenda of
the destruction of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
How can you not see this?

Kropotkin

14

Siatd,

You’re going to hear yammering on both sides of what constitutes “reasonable” but the real flap and the greatest concern is about the lack of oversight and review. Essentially, the presidency is saying it is right because I say it is right. “trust me.” Now I’m sure that all government employees have my best interests at heart, but I, and a lot of other people get squeemish when the only explanation is, “trust me”.

Over the history of the U.S. and almost any other government you’d care to name, there have been a few instances where government employees have been less than honest and/or helpful in their dealings with fellow citizens. While one can certainly argue that in today’s world government needs all the tools necessary to fight extremism, it does not follow that there is any pressing reason to abandon oversight. Speed and flexibility is one issue, but giving any government a blank check concerning the rights of its citizens isn’t in those citizens’ best interests - unless, of course, you trust your politicians… :astonished:

JT

15

K: Welcome to the 4th Reich.

A: Your disgusting rhetoric alienates any reasonable person who might want to be open-minded and listen to your message. You may be right, I haven’t been keeping up in the news, but why don’t you work on your delivery a bit. More references and evidence, less ridiculous and inflammatory rhetoric. You might find more listening ears.

K: When I read an argument, any argument, I always
take that argument seriously. I look past the rhetoric, I look past any
spelling or grammar problems, I look past who might be making said
argument and I simply ask myself, Is this argument valid?
I take every single argument seriously. I got to where I am, in
my views, by taking apart and questioning every single view I hold.

Now my viewpoints may be “disgusting” to you, but I can’t help
that. I think bush is the most dangerous politician to happen
in American history, bar none. Now perhaps instead of reacting
with ohhh, “he is disgusting” you might wonder why I would use
such inflammatory language? The reason is simple, If your house
was burning down, would you quietly say, help, help or would
you jump up and down and scream at the top of you lungs,
FIRE, FIRE, . The american house is burning down around your head.
It is too bad you don’t have eyes to see the smoke and flames
dancing around your head. I see it. As clear as day. I am not
concern with hurting your delicate feelings with the house burning
down around your head. WAKE UP. Because my house is your house,
and the house is on fire. I can’t be any more plain then that.
The house is on fire and bush lite set it on fire.

Kropotkin

16

And I was correct, I have been proven wrong again. I must speak…blast!

Your ability to inflate and spin has got to have earned you points in the media already. Such bold claims and opinions with no evidence to back them up. Give us some links or something, man! I have the news as well, I can read CNN, but you want to fuel a discussion, give your audience some information.

Paying attention to the world and seeking out information to bad mouth the current president are two different things. I like to find out information, but I like to broaden my horizons. Look up many different things. Not so one-sighted.

You know how many presidents have committed impeachable offenses in some people’s eyes? I’m not saying it justifies it, but it’s not new. It’s not anything that America hasn’t seen before. You claim that this is the worst offense EVER committed against the Constitution. I find this laughable. You have already been reminded of the Japanese Internment camps. Maybe this doesn’t register fully with you because you didn’t experience it. My family did. Forcefully removing people from society and barely, and I mean BARELY giving them the essentials to survive I consider a grievous act. Its not spying, oh no the government can see what I do…like this has never happened before. Now, there’s a law that allows it. Hey, they passed a law that gave them those rights, and we LET THEM!! We gave them that power. Whose to blame really?

Reacted passively??!!?? You call the internment camps passive? Are you serious? And the Civil War, that was passive, oh yes, very passive. The Civil War could be the most grievous. States left the union. Freely. They decided that they no longer wanted to be part of the US. Okay. They are allowed to do that. We declare war on them. Huh? America’s history is filled with warring over commodities and resources, veiled under the name of rights and freedom. How many potential and former Americans died in that war? How many? And you call some spying the worst offense ever taken against the Constitution?

I believe you sir are a deluded individual.

17

newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005 … 4807.shtml

Clinton Used NSA for Economic Espionage

"During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use its super-secret Echelon surveillance program to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade, NewsMax.com has learned.

In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence.

“We have a triple and limited objective,” the former intelligence chief told the French paper. “To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace ‘dual’ technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business.”…

nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

"Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
Does anyone remember that?

In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has “inherent authority” to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress’s decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

“The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes,” Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, “and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.”

“It is important to understand,” Gorelick continued, “that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.”

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against “a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.”

Reporting the day after Gorelick’s testimony, the Washington Post’s headline — on page A-19 — read, “Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches.” The story began, “The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration’s quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers.”

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. “Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise,” Gorelick said. “Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus.”

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames’s house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames’s lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it “does not restrict the president’s ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security.” In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.

pathetic democRATS…

keep buying the liberal lies…

-Imp

18

Yeah, Imp… I had thought of one of those stories when I originally heard about this recent thing w/ Bush.

You have a point… but I feel like the real upset is not coming with the searches alone… but in their conjunction with the patriot act, and the war… and the fact that Bush is a cokehead fuckup.

19

Not that there’s a one-sided opinion here.

20

Me or Imp?

Opinions, Beliefs… they’re dangerous.

Think of it as a thought.