It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Bush Allowed NSA to Spy on U.S. International Calls

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Think about it; You actually think its just terrorists they want?

All protestors against this *cough* war are under watch and presumed terrorists-

Anyone who says anything detrimental against Bush is antiAmerican and considered a terrorist.

I could go on listing what would qualify people to fall under the word "terrorist"...

You dont have to make threats against the government to be considered a terrorist, all you have to do is insinuate your displeasure...

AND THAT is what this is all about.

It is our constitutional right under the Constitution of the United States, (you know, before it became papier de toilete) to have freedom of speech.

This is abuse of power. Its nothing else. His horsey must be stopped NOW.

Not that it came as any sort of shock,
, nothing shocks me anymore.

But the good news is, Mr. Bush will prevail. He will get his Patriot Act passed, so have faith. And then, we will all be protected like babies in our mothers womb. Isnt life great?




posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
One more point I want to make - it is pitiful how the Democrats are falling all over themselves in their attempts to decry this action by our president. They have very selective memory when they are reminded that Clinton did something similar, and that the Dem. leadership have been constantly briefed and updated by Bush's staff regarding these eavesdrops.

Senator Russel Feingold, in particular, was "Shocked! Shocked, I tell you!" over the cojones this president has. Feingold went so far on TV tonight to say that this was the very first he had heard of the illegal eavesdropping.

Well, Russ, we did say that it was the Democratic leadership that was in the loop on this, didn't we?



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Jsobecky, i have no doubt at all this, once again, is William Jefferson Clintons doing?


Let us track it back. I am sure we can find lots of executive orders by Clinton to watch the citizens and classify them as persons of interest if they dared speak of cigars*


You people will go to your deaths fighting and apologizing for this administration- I give up.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
What makes this political? Why is it Democratic vs. Republican if they are both seem to be working together as seems to be a defense? I never realized how flawless the actions of a single man could be, expect my own of course.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Think about it; You actually think its just terrorists they want?

All protestors against this *cough* war are under watch and presumed terrorists-

Anyone who says anything detrimental against Bush is antiAmerican and considered a terrorist.

I could go on listing what would qualify people to fall under the word "terrorist"...

You dont have to make threats against the government to be considered a terrorist, all you have to do is insinuate your displeasure...

AND THAT is what this is all about.

I'll take the long leap and stipulate.


Specifically, how many rights have you lost? How has your personal copy of freedom of speech been affected, dg? What you forget is that these same protestor-terrorists under a Republican administration will become the John Kerrys of the next Democratic administration. It all evens out.


Not that it came as any sort of shock,
, nothing shocks me anymore.

But the good news is, Mr. Bush will prevail. He will get his Patriot Act passed, so have faith. And then, we will all be protected like babies in our mothers womb. Isnt life great?

Nothing shocks you anymore? Would you believe that at least 4 occasions of terrorism on a scale of a 9/11 have been thwarted because of it's inception? Two here, two overseas.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
"I know you all hate me. You're all against me. I gotta keep watch on every single one of you 288 million 'cause you don't love me and you're all traitorous disloyal pigs who would voted me out office if'n my boys hadn't ... well, you would have done it, because you're all my enemies and I gotta keep watch on you all closely." -- Official White Horse Souse



-Whatreallyhappened.com



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
"I know you all hate me. You're all against me. I gotta keep watch on every single one of you 288 million 'cause you don't love me and you're all traitorous disloyal pigs who would voted me out office if'n my boys hadn't ... well, you would have done it, because you're all my enemies and I gotta keep watch on you all closely." -- Official White Horse Souse



-Whatreallyhappened.com



I wonder if that ever pops into his mind though.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
The actions the President authorized are long overdue. The very nature of COMINT & ELINT almost precludes drawing a fence around this country and saying not to listen to stuff taking place within that fence. I think a crime was committed though by publishing an article about it, especially when the primary aim of the article was to garner publicity for a forthcoming book. I have absolutely no problem with NSA monitoring international communications whether originated within or without the U.S.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Jsobecky, i have no doubt at all this, once again, is William Jefferson Clintons doing?


Let us track it back. I am sure we can find lots of executive orders by Clinton to watch the citizens and classify them as persons of interest if they dared speak of cigars*


You people will go to your deaths fighting and apologizing for this administration- I give up.

How about if we can prove that Clinton did pretty much the same thing that Bush did? And Dems and Repubs were both fine with it? That's what we're talking about.

dg, this is all about a book deal. That's all.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Another viewpoint:

Susan Low Bloch, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center, said Bush was "taking a hugely expansive interpretation of the Constitution and the president's powers under the Constitution.

That view was echoed by congressional Democrats.

"I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press.


_MyWaynews



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Nothing shocks you anymore? Would you believe that at least 4 occasions of terrorism on a scale of a 9/11 have been thwarted because of it's inception? Two here, two overseas.


No, because I have no proof, just the word of an entity that we already know lies.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
World's Worst-Kept Secrets

I see nothing in the NYT article that actually seems new, other than the fact that this stuff has been published with calculated political intent.

The NSA has been doing this sort of thing for a lot longer than Bush has been president, and for far less noble reasons.

What I would like to know is who benefits from publicizing this, who's pushing this agenda, and why this sort of information is being published for U.S. and world consumption.

That would be an answer worth knowing, indeed.

This business of "exposing" these kinds of things stinks of political manipulation and infighting among the Powers That Be.

If there is a "Titoresque" civil war taking place, it's taking place within the U.S. government, and it seems to be getting nastier with each passing day.

How long before bodies start dropping?

Let's watch and see.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   
We have so many changes going on, some absolutely silly.

Christmas trees, you can't take pictures, constitutional changes, etc.

Is this about terrorism at all? Or is it just aimed at making the citizen powerless a little bit at a time.

Troy



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
This business of "exposing" these kinds of things stinks of political manipulation and infighting among the Powers That Be.

It positively reeks. The standard defense for being the source of a leak is that we as a country are somehow made stronger because of it. The fact that we may cause damage or vulnerability in another area is met with the same staccato parrot-talk.

We as a citizenry are not entitled to know everything about everything that our gov't. does. Security does trump certain demands for information.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
I think we are very lucky to have a President who has the wherewithal to take command during such dire times. There is no doubt in my mind that the Administration has prevented further attacks on American soil and has so crippled al Qaeda that they don't know whether to spit or go blind. They are not yet defeated, but the al-Qaeda we all feared following 9/11 is in such a state of turmoil that with continued effort it very well may implode.

I think, however, that life will never again be what it has been for the US for the last 60 years. There will never be a time when we can let our guard down and ignore the necessity of intelligence, electronic, mechanical, and human. Heck, the idea of mandatory national service might even become fashionable again.

To return briefly to our good friend John Titor, perhaps we should be less concerned about his predictions and more concerned with his observation:



This time period is looked at as being full of lazy, self-centered, civically [sic]ignorant sheep.

Wikipedia


EDIT: Got rid of "Plan 9 from Outer Space" like sentence.

[edit on 2005/12/18 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   
And you know that this refers to people like me and many millions who want to preserve our rights.

Could it be Titor is saying this about the other half?



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Kind aof interesting to me that we suddenly go from just psychobabble (me? psychobabble? I hardly think so).

To denigrate something that someone believes in and start calling it names in lieu of a rational argument does not bode well for your particular position. Suddenly it is a dem vs republican thing... When, in fact, it is nothing of the sort. It is a matter of the rights of the citizens of this country being run over in a roughshod way and people defending it because they haven't had it happen to them yet.

It also has little to nothing to do with who did it before, and who has done it since. Simply because everyone may have done it all the way down the line, in no way makes it right. The act itself is still damnable, and it is still against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to be exposed to unreasonable search or seizure.. And to have people looking in my email, tapping my phones and digging into my personal life, and putting me in jeopardy of being seized and imprisoned, having my personal belongings seized, having my life put into shambles by someone, simply because they can, and with no cause is unreasonable.

And JSOBecky, it is ok to feel anger, but understand that blind anger in the face of an affront like the boxcutters to the throat, instead of a reasoned response is often originated as a fear response.

You changed the scenario of circumstance to suit yourself in the knife at my daughter's throat. That is not the way it happened. Not according to what I have been able to glean from the data presented. I fail to understand how a few men with boxcutters could force a large number of people to bend to their will other than through fear of what might happen to each one, personally.

It would seem that you can change things around to suit your vision and make yourself feel better. However that doesn't change what happened in any real sense. A couple of determined bad guys with box cutters ended up killing how many people??? And simply because the majority was afraid to act. Hmmm .... Life does not come with any guarantees other than, perhaps taxes and death. Security is a mindset and a preparedness to act to defend that which you hold dear.

And that is not what this dicussion is about, at any rate. We are discussing the rights of the American Citizen to be safe against the onslaught of big government in the name of supposed terrorist defense, or whatever the current idealogical wolf at the door of the day might be.

To fall back on the old argument, "What rights have you lost" then to present the argument, "if a little mail is rifled... etc "

I've lost my right to feel secure and safe in a country that is founded on those principles. It is a country that I voluntarily gave some of my most precious possession, my time, to defend and stand up for. That ought to be a wake up call to anyone who values those rights. And to further that thought, where does it stop?

You are saying to me that it's ok for the government to include you, me and anyone that they deem to be of questionable ilk in their current definition of bad guy? And with no justification? Only perceived pretext?

It seems that many of the arguments against the sanctity of the individual simply boil down to "The ends justifies the means". And get as angry with my "psychobabble" as you wish. That is just wrong.

And to get everyone on board with that, all that the government has to do is wave the flag, utter whatever justification they want to and define the enemy in any way they see fit, and go for it. We either have to get on board, immediately, or we are immediately enemies of that state. Remember, if you will, Bush's statement, "If you're not for us, you are against us"? That in and of itself was a scary enough statement.

I don't know about you, as I only speak for myself, but if that isn't damnable and a serious threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then I guess I don't know what is.

What we are facing is, in essence, a natural progression of a government of this type. I give you the last great experiment in government that was anywhere close to this scenario... The Roman Government. That too was begun as a bulwark of the individual and ended with the people putting everthing on the shoulders of the government (A cradle to grave scenario). Interesting that they were so intent on taking care of themselves that they allowed a government to be put in place that was so non-individualized that it fell to the terrorists (barbarians at the gate) that they wanted to defend against.

I think that in these times, we, as a nation and a people are evolving in a peculiar direction and that we need to be very careful and watchful lest we become that which we hate.

Psychobabble... Indeed!

[edit on 18-12-2005 by sigung86]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   
All this stuff comes with the name "safety" or "preventing terrorism" or some other term attatched to it. And sometimes the changes seem to make sense, but there are so many "big" changes happening in more areas than just the constitution, and in other countries other than the USA, I can't help but think there is some big plan happening.

Too many things are changing for me to look the other way. Like having a Christmas celebration is under attack. It's seems like a sign of something that is coming. I don't remember something like this ever being a real problem. Since when in the good ol' USA have we ever had to worry about this? You add this to the constitutional changes, monitoring e-mail, and phone calls and what we have sounds something like a biblical prophesy. This may or may not be happening, and I would like to think that this is our life and our choice of how we want to live our lives, not the choice of those with the "guns and high positions of power."

The last time I checked I had a mind that wasn't connected to a remote control device.

Given that changes are happening in other areas of the world as well, I'm not sure that moving out of the USA is going to help much.

The Bush supporters may come to dislike the future that is coming, even though it all seems fine right now. What kind of life would it be with the military and police watching you 24 hours a day, like you are the criminal?
Would I be afraid to call someone on the phone and tell them I disagree with the government for fear that I would be labeled a "terrorist?" And it's my right to disagree, especially if what I am disagreeing with is bad. At least it was my right in the "real" constitution.

And just where does Bush stand on "Christmas" attacks? Does he even care? You would think that, since his is a "Christian" he would actually try to do something about it. You know, at least make a statement about it. Makes me wonder.


Troy

[edit on 18-12-2005 by cybertroy]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
Kind aof interesting to me that we suddenly go from just psychobabble (me? psychobabble? I hardly think so).

To denigrate something that someone believes in and start calling it names in lieu of a rational argument does not bode well for your particular position.


I went a long way in order to avoid denigrating you as a person. Your arguments, however are weak, and without substance, and I'm not going to spend hours walking on eggs to avoid hurting your feelings.

It also has little to nothing to do with who did it before, and who has done it since.

On the one hand, you try to make a purely philosophical argument, on the next you answer with "Leave me alone Bushie!" which shows your bias.

Simply because everyone may have done it all the way down the line, in no way makes it right. The act itself is still damnable, and it is still against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to be exposed to unreasonable search or seizure..


Unreasonable being the operative phrase here.


And to have people looking in my email, tapping my phones and digging into my personal life, and putting me in jeopardy of being seized and imprisoned, having my personal belongings seized, having my life put into shambles by someone, simply because they can, and with no cause is unreasonable.

Has any of this actually happened? Or is the drama of the possibility the essence of your argument?


And JSOBecky, it is ok to feel anger,

Tell me what made you resort to personally attacking my username there, sigung86? That was a childish thing to do. And I suppose you and the ones who encouraged you to resort to that particular personal attack get a certain rise from doing it?

At any rate, you've proven to me that you are not mature enough to engage in debate without resorting to personal attacks. No big loss for me - there are plenty of adults on ATS to debate.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
Tell that to the millions of dead Cambodians and Laotions ... Tell that to the dead Jews, gays, underprivileged and ill-treated of the last global unpleasantness... The one that was titled WWII. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands, perhaps million or more people who are dead at the hands of government driven pogroms like those in places like Kosovo.

In the case of Indochina, I will have to plead ignorance as I don’t have a sufficient amount of knowledge to make any kind of intelligent response. Regarding World War II, I will admit that the socialists obviously seized every ounce of power given to them by a brainwashed public. The numbers were against them however, and the international community eventually stepped in and dealt forcefully with the problem.

A weak argument at best, but I think you sidestepped the issue to a degree. Hitler came to power through shrewd political prowess and extensive psychological manipulation. But he was brought to power by the people nonetheless; manipulative as he was, he still used (sort of) the political process. I’m not in a position to argue the Jew’s position in government, because I have no idea what it was or what percentage of the population they represented.

It does raise an interesting point though, and that is how do you explain the difference between a group of people who offer little to no resistance to harsh oppression, and those who raise arms over significantly less? I tend to see it as underscoring the psychological complexities of the individual, but others will interpret it other ways.




Again, I understand, and agree. However, the part of all this that bothers me is that in the face of these expectations and these "really pretty specific" guidelines (Constitution and Bill of Rights), the specialized body blatantly throws them out the window, then we have greater issues than terrorists to be concerned about. It begins to appear that the terrorists may have taken over the government...

What say you?????

What say I? I could go into a long tirade about the constitution as a “living document” etc., but I don’t know how much of my own writing I would believe. So I will reply with an example. Where was everybody during the National Firearms Act of 1934? How about the Gun Control Act of 1968? 1986 machine gun ban? 1994 Assault Weapons Ban? Or how about the countless state AWBs and gun control laws? Granted someone shot Dr. Martin Luther King, but is it worth giving up your rights to feel safer? I specifically recall something along the lines of:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The answer lies in striking the optimum balance between lofty ideology and harsh reality; too much of either one will lead us all to ruin.

And herein lies the value of political opposition. Without it, we would be subject to every nuance and whim of our government. With it, we have a firmly established reflection of the feeling of the constituency and a mouthpiece for them to make their feelings heard. Through this process a balance can be found and adjusted to fit the times. Hitler draped himself in the flag and removed all political opposition, look where Germany ended up. As annoying as it can be at times, I wouldn’t trade it for the world.




Indeed! I do not give a tinker's damn about the foreign national of Arab descent... He is on his own, unless he is a naturalized citizen. Then he should have no more worry about his phone than the next guy... Unless he has done something to overtly or perhaps, covertly, show that he is a bad guy.

So that one piece of paper makes the difference? Regardless of his intent, as soon as he is granted citizenship he becomes immune to suspicion? And how exactly do we determine if he has done something covertly without the means to monitor him?

I think it comes down to trust, and that is an area where we differ. We can either give the government some latitude to monitor the population entrusting them with discretionary capability not to abuse the system, or we can revoke that power and hope for the best. I would rather put my future in something more tangible and definitive than simply the goodness of mankind.




I think that in these times, we, as a nation and a people are evolving in a peculiar direction and that we need to be very careful and watchful lest we become that which we hate.

Indeed. "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil




A personal aside to you. Thanks very much for the debate. I wasn't sure if the para was for para"trooper" or para"legal"... But after a couple of reads I thunk you was a college student.

Good luck on your career. I seriously would be interested in talking to you in ten years or so and seeing how your views have changed.

Many thanks for the kind words. I realize that as of yet I am still unexperienced, and this usually keeps me in check and away from ideological binges. Usually. I would like to talk to anyone in ten years, hopefully the world can make it that long.

[edit on 12/18/05 by para]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join