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.

 

Bush readies pen; Relishes signing wiretap bill

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:


posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   
I couldn't believe at first what I was reading!! This is Tyranny! This violates our beloved constitution! WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS ATROCIOUSNESS?! IS MONEY REALLY THAT IMPORTANT?!? My eyes contain tears of sadness




[edit on 11-7-2008 by gen0cide]

[edit on 11-7-2008 by gen0cide]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   
With 2 exceptions, I thoroughly hate every member of Congress, and I totally loathe every person serving in the Executive Branch.

Every last one of them should be stripped of their citizenship, everything they own seized, and their children and grandchildren deported from the USA.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
You guys should chill for your own safety... "They" monitor this site day and night and everything being logged same way as wiretapping... I should point out that we are in danger, for them it is the same wire... they can easily label any of us as a "Threat" to their plans.

No wonder some people predict a Civil War. Too bad that good guys will lose this one... the Beast cannot lose at this time...



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Here's an article that might get some interest. Or not.

www.reuters.com...

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. authorities racing to find three kidnapped American soldiers in Iraq last May labored for nearly 10 hours to get legal authority for wiretaps to help in the hunt, an intelligence official told Congress on Thursday.

The top U.S. spy agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, sent Congress a timeline detailing the wiretap effort as the Bush administration makes its case to wary Democrats for a permanent expansion of its authority to eavesdrop on the foreign communications of terrorism suspects.

"In order to comply with the law, the government was required to spend valuable time obtaining an emergency authorization ... to engage in collection related to the kidnapping," Ronald Burgess, principle deputy director to McConnell, said in a letter to U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes.

Reyes, a Texas Democrat, is chairman of the House of Representatives intelligence committee.

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell has been under fire from some Democrats in control of Congress who say misstatements have eroded his credibility. Some Democrats and civil liberties advocates say a temporary expansion of the eavesdropping authority passed in August threatens the rights of Americans and any permanent law needs more protections.

The timeline shows that at 10 a.m. EDT (1400 GMT) on May 15, after three days of developing leads on the whereabouts of the three soldiers who went missing south of Baghdad, U.S. agencies met to discuss ways of obtaining more intelligence.

Concluding at 12:53 p.m. EDT (1653 GMT) that requirements for emergency eavesdropping approval had been met, officials spent more than four hours debating "novel and complicated issues" in the case. They spent about more two hours to obtain final approval from then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who was traveling.

The wiretap began at 7:38 p.m. (2138 GMT). Authorities then had 72 hours to obtain a special court's endorsement of the emergency authority, which was granted, a U.S. official said.

McConnell told the committee last week that an outdated provision in the eavesdropping law made the approval necessary because the targeted foreign communications were carried in part on a wire inside the United States.

"We are extending Fourth Amendment (constitutional) rights to a terrorist foreigner ... who's captured U.S. soldier," he said, arguing that this was unnecessary and burdensome.

Congress temporarily broadened the law in August so such approval would no longer be required, but that legislation expires in February and U.S. President George W. Bush wants a permanent law enacted.

An al Qaeda-led group in June said it had killed the three soldiers, and showed pictured of ID cards of two of the men.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
After i read this it also said 3 companies have already filed a lawsuits claiming privacy rights. Wonder how that is going to go. Can we file one too?



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


I agree with you wholeheartedly. I simply point out that the man who wears the "Decider's" hat gets to be first in line. That is what the leadership position is all about. And that's why picking an honorable and courageous President is so vital to our country. Sadly, we haven't seen many of those, and I wouldn't be too surprised if future history discovers the only true honorable and courageous presidents the fledgling United States of America ever had - got their purely by accident.


Hang on there Maxmars, the bill doesn't even get up to the president for signing/veto if it doesn't pass the House and the Senate first. If the president is going to sign a bill, he is the LAST do to so. Not the first. I think you need to shift some of the blame where it's due - on your elected Democrats who aren't representing your best interests anymore.

One more thing - every last one of those Congressmen and women also swear to uphold the Constitution before they take office.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by sos37]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Okay now, I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything like that, but I would like for someone, anyone to explain to me WHY this bill on wiretapping is such a bad thing - hear me out before you zoom to the reply button.

If this bill is intended for intercepting terrorist communications and keeping a watch on other major criminal activity, then why is it such a bad thing? Isn't the intent to keep U.S. citizens safe? Yes, I know you think it goes against the Constitution, but the Constitution does not contain specific verbage guaranteeing us the "right to privacy".

When you explain, PLEASE use your own words - don't use that tired old quote by Benjamin Franklin. I know what he says, but I want to know what you guys think.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
so the dems with all that big talk finally cave in hu? wtf?
so now neither party is looking out for our rights.? we are so screwed.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
jerico65 - 3 American soldiers were kidnapped and killed. I find that tragic and distressing. Even more tragic and distressing was the American government's decision to put them there by waging an illegal war in Iraq. To do so they ran a carefully contrived campaign of disinformation in which, almost over night, the very man they helped install - Saddam Hussein - became a serious and present danger to the "free world". Many young Americans were sent into Iraq believing they were fighting a regime that was instrumental in the atrocities of 9/11.

Ari Fleischer’s Propaganda Iraq War Ad

That Reuters story reeks of cynical propaganda. If the timeline is correct, I suspect the fate of those unfortunate soldiers was exploited for the purpose of "selling" this further infringement upon our rights. We have seen the administration using American soldiers in this cavalier way many times. They've already admitted widespread spying on Americans, they've conducting numerous black operations via private militia, security and other operatives (thereby immunising themselves from any resulting prosecutions) but want us to believe they had to observe strict protocol before eavesdropping on the kidnappers or their associates. Ridiculous.

sos37 - if you believe your government has and will always have your interests at the top of its agenda, even when those interests conflict directly with its own or those of other more powerful groups, then it is probably an excellent idea to abandon your right to privacy for the greater public good. Once abandoned, do not expect to retrieve it.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I don't get it.

This is nothing more than a Bush-bashing thread. FDR used wiretapping during WWII without any kind of executive order. This has been going on over over half a century! Do you guys believe this all started with Bush or something?

This is only an issue today because we have an incredibly leftist media that hates GWB and rams this stuff down our throat. I'm all for civil liberties, but you guys have to realize it's the Democrats trying to take away civil liberties, not Republicans. The only reason why there is any Democrat opposition to wiretapping is because Bush did it. If Clinton did it, there would be no opposition from them because the Dems are ALL FOR larger government by any means necessary.

Again, this is nothing more than a Bush-bashing agenda. There has been wire-tapping going on since telephones were put in homes. The fact is, nothing you say over the phone that is heard can be used against you unless it threatens national security.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Thank you for posting that, jerico65. Star and
for you. Unfortunately the only response to it so far was the usual "if we weren't in Iraq, it wouldn't have happened" liberal bullcrap.


reply to post by ChocoTaco369
 


You have a historical perspective that most here do not possess. FDR did things to protect the country that would bring howls of anger from today's liberals. Yet we survived and are stronger because of it.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by jerico65
 


Thank you for posting that, jerico65. Star and
for you. Unfortunately the only response to it so far was the usual "if we weren't in Iraq, it wouldn't have happened" liberal bullcrap.


reply to post by ChocoTaco369
 


You have a historical perspective that most here do not possess. FDR did things to protect the country that would bring howls of anger from today's liberals. Yet we survived and are stronger because of it.


Not only he ...

* J. Edgar Hoover used them to hunt bootleggers

* FDR (a Democrat) - as previously mentioned:


In 1940, he wrote his attorney general, Robert Jackson, that while he accepted the court rulings that upheld the 1934 law, he didn't think those prohibitions applied to "grave matters involving the defense of the nation"--an increasingly high priority as world war loomed. On the contrary, Roosevelt ordered Jackson to proceed with the secret use of "listening devices" (taps or bugs) to monitor "persons suspected of subversive activities ... including suspected spies."


* Truman (also a Democrat), who followed FDR, also supported the use of wiretapping and expanded its use to include "domestic security":


But when Harry Truman succeeded FDR in 1945, America's enemies list was changing fast. The next year, as the Iron Curtain fell and the Red Scare flared, Truman's attorney general, Tom Clark, expanded FDR's national security order to permit the surveillance of "domestic subversives." Clark and Truman endorsed wiretapping whenever matters of "domestic security" were at stake, allowing taps to be placed on someone simply because he held radical views.


* And, let's not forget this last little interesting bit ...


The next four presidents, with escalating zeal, each made use of taps and bugs, drawing little scrutiny amid the Cold War anxiety. The FBI and CIA monitored all sorts of citizens who were far from subversive. Most famously, under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, the FBI eavesdropped on Martin Luther King Jr. on the threadbare rationale that he had Communist ties and posed a security threat.


* Those next four presidents were Dwight D Eisenhower, John F Kennedy, Lyndon B Johnson and Richard Nixon.

Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats, not Republicans!

No, Bush isn't the first president to make use of wiretapping.

Source: hnn.us...

[edit on 11-7-2008 by sos37]

[edit on 11-7-2008 by sos37]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
If they have full legal right to monitor us, then we should have the full right to monitor them, if not, it is tyranny. Remember, The government is supposed to serve the people, by the people, for the people. not the other way around.

If they were really were concerned for our safety, then our south borders would be tightly secured. It's so easy, even a third world inhabitant can do it! ( by hopping the border ) They are living proof that most of the higher federal government officials FAIL. It is very peculiar that all these years with the border open, we didn't have a radical Muslim hop the south border and cause destruction.

Bush bashing? I'm so sick of hearing that ****, every time you question, or make a point, you must be a "Bush Basher". Stop using all these cute terms please. All that we are doing is discussing our discontent, and anger against the sell-outs that limit our freedoms one-by-one. The patriots here should all do what our fore-fathers did, but wait, then that would label us all "terrorist". They should rewrite the history books saying that the fore-fathers were all terrorists.

I think it is interesting this bill becomes to be, shortly after their secret meeting.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by gen0cide]

[edit on 11-7-2008 by gen0cide]

[edit on 11-7-2008 by gen0cide]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
ChocoTaco - Nobody claimed Bush was the first president to use wiretapping.

It's not about the idiot incumbent - it's about the rapid erosion of your rights by big government. As sos37's post shows, the government has been eavesdropping since the telephone was invented and the "FBI and CIA monitored all sorts of citizens who were far from subversive". However, there were limits upon what could be done with information obtained illegally. Nixon's illegal wiretaps formed one of the many grounds for the articles of impeachment voted against him by a bipartisan majority of the House Judiciary Committee.

When Bush acknowledged that he repeatedly authorized wiretaps, without obtaining a warrant, of American citizens engaged in international calls - committing a felony by violating FISA, which requires court approval for national security wiretaps - nada... nothing!


Originally posted by jsobecky
You have a historical perspective that most here do not possess.


Yesterday U.S. citizens' historic right to protection by law against government spying was removed.



Update: nada in the MSM perhaps but Federal Judge Ruling: George W. Bush is a Felon

[edit on 11-7-2008 by EvilAxis]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join