Just Between Us

Just Between Us

www.newsweek.com

Telecoms and the Bush administration talked about how to keep their surveillance program under wraps.

The Bush administration is refusing to disclose internal e-mails, letters and notes showing contacts with major telecommunications companies over how to persuade Congress to back a controversial surveillance bill, according to recently disclosed court documents.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 5/1/2008 by RabbitChaser]

What's that? The Bush Admin. refusing to disclose something? You're crazy!!

But while complying with the judge's order to confirm the existence of some documents, administration officials have told the judge they cannot actually disclose the documents themselves, in part because to do so would undermine national security.

www.newsweek.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5/1/2008 by RabbitChaser]

S & F

More sneakiness and underhanded crap from the most secretive and corrupt admin in history. No suprise-The hits just keep coming!

Line one -
.
Line two -
.

Flagged



Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note : A one line post doesn't necessarily mean just one word or one line of text. It could also be a post with one or two lines, but still off topic.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by elevatedone]

reply to post by RabbitChaser


These crooks really cannot surprise me anymore. Its like they're following 1984 or Mein Kampf word for word.

Disgusting.

You know I certainly agree with all of the above from you 3... let's see what the evening/night-time crowd thinks of this (here's the bump )

This is NOT a one-liner, but...

Thread flagged.

I don't think we CAN be surprised anymore.

It's called "executive priviledge" and it has to do with privacy. It's what allows you or I to talk to the president without our conversations being made public.

In the general scheme of things, people can throw out some whacky ideas in the interest of having all sides heard and to spark debate. If such conversations were made available, news medias could twist and turn every syllable uttered by any forward(or petty)-thinker and make a mockery of his life in the petty interest of killing the message by killing the messenger.

We're talking about talk, here. And talk amongst those with the most "inside" knowledge often involves information commensurate with their jobs. In an open society, to make State secrets public to her citizens is to make them public to the world. So, I ask ye:

Would we strip the Law of attorney-client priviledge? Would we strip society of husband-wife priviledge? Of course not, I trust.

And, in an ever more international world, let us not strip our country of our country's priviledge to privacy.

Edit to add: Having read the above respondants, maybe I'm just saying this to get a discussion going.

Or am I.....


[edit on 1-5-2008 by Tuning Spork]

All they have to do are mention those two magical words "national security" and they can get away with damn near anything.

I'd really like to know how disclosing the documents would compromise our national security. More like Bush & telcom security!

See above.

Some people think that national security began with Bush.

They might call themselves freedom fighters, but some others just might call those "freedom fighters" nothing more than "young".

The world isn't the Andy Griffith Show, folks.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by Tuning Spork]

It seems to me that there's one or more people posting here that's missing the whole point when they try to "defend" Bush's so-called excuses for National Security, Executive Privledge, or even his Right to Privacy in his conversations with the telecoms. The real point is that, according to the linked article, Bush is discussing with telecoms methods that they can use to "persuade" Congress to adopt a new Bill...The real deal here is that Bush is attempting to use corporate influence to persuade Congress to "vote away" more Right to Privacy for Citizens: Totally against the Constitution & Oath of Office.

This also should include the fact that the Constitution puts "sovereignty" of the People above that of the government. So Bush's use of "Sovereign Immunity" is totally invalid to begin with.

Also, when Bush ever mentions "National Security," he's more likely to actually mean, "my personal security to avoid getting arrested." After all, when does National Security involve "Robbing Citizens of more Rights?"

So far, every one of Bush's actions (Cheney's no better either) performed while in Office has been in violation of his Constitutional Oath in one way or another, so his trying to pull another fast one isn't surprising...It's more disgusting that he can't even come up with any new smokescreens for excuses, let alone actually do his duty under the Constitution as he's legally bound to do.

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
The world isn't the Andy Griffith Show, folks.

No, but we expect some accountability from this Pres. when it comes to invasion of privacy and taking rights/freedoms. C'mon TP, you know you can't trust this guy... thanks for stirring up some responses for my thread though.

And, MidnightDStroyer... well said. Star for you

I laugh at stuff like this rather then cry I guess...

On the one hand, it would be scary, if we actually had an effective government that had enough people employed to monitor the infinite amount of conversations whizzing around out there...

It's naive at best to say that this administration has the market cornered on this crap though...this has been going on for many administrations...this one is just covering it's tracks in case it gets caught at it, is all.

my 2 cents.

reply to post by Tuning Spork


You make some very valid points, however we are talking about a country that is spying on it's own citizens. We are talking about an Administration on a non stop fishing expedition just looking for people to hang from the rafters. These are the things we were warned about by the forefathers of this country. They knew what real tyranny was. They understood how power that went unchecked, would infringe on the rights of the individual who simply wanted to provide for his/her family and live in peace. This can not be compared to attorney client privledge, a discussion between a person and their minister, or a conversation between a man and his wife. We are talking about a government that is looking for a reason to strip you of your rights and hold you accountable for whatever thought you may have that does not coincide with they way they want things to be. "Executive Privledge" is something that has been thoroughly abused by this Administration.

reply to post by Kruel


"National Security" probably is a valid point these days. What Bush Administration officials could mean is that if certain information were disclosed about the administration's reportedly alleged and confessed criminal behavior, that could precipitate further loss of trust and the downfall of the government; at least significant portions of the executive, legislative and judicial branch.

Recently, I don't think that the Bush Administration is concerned with foreign threats. I believe it is concerned primarily with domestic damage control. The administration and the telecoms have clearly engaged in criminal behavior. And both interests are desperately trying to avoid penalty. If there is a loss of confidence in the telecoms, clearly there will be a domestic and international loss of billions of dollars in revenue. If there is direct proof of conspiracy between the administration and the telecoms, that would clearly represent a concern of national security. It would do so because information that would detail key relationships and the nature of those relationships would necessarily be revealed. It would be information that would have the potential blaze trails toward other undisclosed truths.

Yeah, Dubya and company keep shouting through the national security bullhorn, but they are not doing it just for show. Their heinous behavior has indeed created a national crisis. A crisis that they do not wish to see unravel.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Areal51]

So Bush would also like to keep his conversations private.

How ironic.

And BTW, if he were to disclose the e-mails doesn't necessarily mean they would be made public. It is what they used to call oversight. Remember those days? I guess that went by way of the Andy Griffith show as well.

People, it has to do with "sources and methods". If these are disclosed, it's like playing poker with a video camera over your shoulder showing your cards to the other players.
I know this is a conspiracy theory website, but not every thing is a "conspiracy". In addition, no one has spied on American citizens, it's against the law - period. The exception is when "citizens" are plotting with "the enemy" (yes, hate to break it to you but we have enemies). As far as the emails and phone calls go, no one cares what you and Great Aunt Tilly are saying to each other. If, on the other hand, you are talking to your "friend" Achmed in Iran about how to make bombs or poison American water sources. . . hmm, someone might be listening.

I can already feel the flames!
Just my $.02

c'mon...

why is everyone surprised?

"absolute power corrupts absolutely"... oh no, I think it is

"money corrupts absolutely...

fargon bastages....

reply to post by Hal9000


Yes, this is exactly what cracks me up so much about this.

The most SECRETIVE administration in history is constantly trying to invade into its own citizens lives at an alarming pace. This has NOTHING to do with National Security, and everying to do with this criminal admins' security...They want dirt on everyone, and they want to know what their citizens are talking about, because they very well know that we're talking about their impeachments and arrests for all of their criminal activities. lol

They're trying to stay one step ahead of us, like a criminal would.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

Sort of a random comment here, but for the first time during a regional/monthly meeting, for the telecom company I work for - the subject of changing certain policies when forming cross boarder agreements with sister companies was discussed, relating to the USA's "compromised" communication networks.

It was a closed door meeting between regional management so obviously I can't go into detail or name names. But basically what was discussed was how the big providers we do business with down south have been actively monitored by your government agencies and how it would violate certain terms of service to our Canadian customers if we were to expose them to networks we knew full well were actively compromised.

Usually theres a "don't ask, don't tell" policy because its recognized that government agencies do this now and then and most of the time have a reason for it and it's understood. But theres obviously been communication from the telecom providers down there concerning blanket or indiscriminate monitoring which conflicts with our service terms (you still need a warrant in somecountries).

Just thought I'd toss that out there, it's not just a 'hush hush' issue within the US, this administration needs to back off before it ends up doing long term damage.