What is Digg?76 Comments
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9It's more than that, everyone wants terrorist suspect to be spied on, in fact please do, but he has to get warrants. When these warrants can be granted by the FISA courts up to 3 days after the fact, there is no good reason why he wouldn't, unless he knows the courts wouldn't approve the warrants. For all we know now he could be using the program to spy in his political enemies.
- Chestnut3499, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16Nothing like having a check and balance for a powerful office, but then giving the holder of that office the ability to keep the checkers and balancers out. At least people are starting to take a serious look into this. I wish that it would come out that Bush had tapes of opponents campaign meetings or some such and that it could be proven. Then Congress might actually made significant moves to get him out of there. It's just too bad that less important concerns - like, oh, losing soldiers to line the pockets of folks who are already obscenely rich - can't get enough true action without dissolving into politics.
- Metman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9>> "Then Congress might actually made significant moves to get him out of there."
Who do you think appropriated the funds for the program? Who do you think signed off on who and what to 'easedrop' on?
Seriously, you may want to take a look at who is on the Appropriations Committee, National Security Committee, Select on Intellegence (House) and Select Intellegence Committees (Senate). If these people did not approve the funding and the who/what it never could have happened. It is ALL a matter of public record and no one ever looks - not even the people that know better. Its more beneficial to use the 'publicity' to push thier agenda (albeit right or wrong as a matter opinion).
The real irony is you believe that Bush all by himself was able to accomplish all this. Which is exactly how we got here. No one pays attention to the real power brokers in Washington and points the finger up top. No one pays attention to how the people the voted into office actually vote or conduct business. The only time anyone ever pays attention is when they get arrested/caught/killed - then all that matters is whether they were Republican or Democrat. - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7right on jocknerd, the day after his state of the union speech in which he mentioned alternative fuels, he cut funding for it's research
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@Metman
it was not a sexual harassment lawsuit in which Clinton committed perjury, it was a grand jury that was called in order to inquiry his relationship with Lewinsky, and while an extra-marital affair is serious and wrong, it is not a matter to be put before a court and yes he should have been truthful to begin with. However, trying to compare this to any of Bush's crimes is laughable, especially compared to the crime of spying without warrants. - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8He should never have the choice of whether he is going to investigated or not, why is he so afraid of being held accountable
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Here you go TechnoTuba, These articles will shed some light on Bush's warrantless spying
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5061845
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/21/politics/main1150626.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012300754.html
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/02/specter-bill-would-require-fisc.php - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Yeah, over a blow job, a matter that never should have been in court anyway. Point is, that was his personal matter, Bush's spying without warrants is a national matter. Don't try and pretend that Clinton's sex life is actually important to anyone but him and his family.
- Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6TubaTechno - maybe you can enlighten us, smart guy. Seems to me that our forefathers must not've known how contemporary European politics worked, because they came up with the stupid idea of a country for and by the people. Which is all we're trying to maintain here. We're all aware of how dirty, 'realistic' politics function, but our country is founded on an idealism which we've oh-so-recently been asked to reasses. You could also explain how it is that, corporate favoritism and domestic spying being necessary to the functioning of our government, we made it so long without them. Guess we dodged that bullet.
ig33k - if you don't like it, first off, don't read it. This is optional, after all. Second, you're a complete retard if you think that America should collectively be ignoring this problem. We've granted tens-of-thousands of surviellance orders and have turned up 2 possible, "we were considering thinking about maybe planning an action against the US at some point, probably sometime after we ran out of crack-rock" 'terror cells.' Did I mention no afiliation with Al-Quaida?
If you call that success, no wonder you support this administration. - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5nobody can, the nice thing about warrants is that they help us know these things, anyway the one year limit has still been exceeded and still no warrants
- rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@TubaTechno
Did you even read those quotes and try to put 2 and 2 together? Do you even know what FISA is or what it's designed to do?
FISA is a secret court that allows the government to quickly and quietly get warrants for surveillance where timing and secrecy is paramount.
Those quotes say that surveillance guided by FISA is constitutional and no one here is arguing that FISA isn't.
However, the problem with Bush's program is that it bypasses FISA. Therefore, any ruling regarding the constitutionality of FISA doesn't apply to Bush's program. - celopes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No, congress didn't. Wait, who controls congress again? Oh, so he wasn't capable of convincing even his own party!?!
Heck of a job on alternative fuel, Bushie! - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4so now TubaTechno, you admit there was warrantless spying, because in the post about you said
"Where did Bush easvsdrop on American citizens without warrants?"
now that you admit it, isn't just one case of warrantless spying wrong - Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Tuba
The current case against AT&T is for them installing the hardware the NSA uses to wiretap every call going through AT&T (Most US traffic hits AT&T at some point or another) Not only has Bush broken the law, he's proven it's intentional by stopping the investigation of his own crimes. - velocipenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@TubaTechno:
The issue is that the FISA court - which allows the Justice Department to obtain approval for intelligence wiretaps (up to 72 hours after the fact) - has been shoved aside by the administration. Bush's warrantless wiretap program is operating outside of the law in order to bypass FISA. This is why people are concerned; there is a reasonably permissive system of oversight in place that has worked well for decades, but the Bush administration has decided to circumvent it in favor of its own system that lacks any checks and balances.
Ironically, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was created in the wake of the Watergate scandal specifically to prevent the executive branch from performing arbitrary warrantless wiretaps. - rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@TubaTechno
"Maybe I'm understanding this wrong, but according to your source, the president was given legal permission to monitor international communication."
While I admire your efforts to provide solid evidence to back up your views, it seems to me that it would help if you actually read what you posted.
Now, you posted this:
"Second, FISA permits the President to authorize the Justice Department to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance for up to one year without a court order. 50 U.S.C. §1802(a)(1). [17] In this situation, the surveillance must be directed solely at communications used exclusively by foreign powers; United States citizens can be considered agents of a foreign power, but not solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 50 U.S.C. §1805(a)(3)."
Now, I don't know weather or not you saw these phrases, but I'm going to point them out to you:
-"In this situation, the surveillance must be directed solely at communications used ***exclusively*** by foreign powers; " (emphasis added)
-"United States citizens can be considered agents of a foreign power, ****but not solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 50 U.S.C.**** §1805(a)(3)" (emphasis added)
So, according to what you posted, the president can conduct surveillance without a court order, for one year, only if both of the following two conditions apply:
1-That the surveillance is conducted only on communications conducted by foreign powers or their agents in which both ends of the communication are considered to be foreign powers or their agents.
2-If the surveillance is to be conducted on US citizens, that citizen must be considered an agent of a foreign power. According to the law, the only way to consider a US citizen an agent of a foreign power, in this circumstance, is if the content of the communication that originated from the citizen isn't covered by the first amendment. (State Secrets, etc..)
Now, I don't know about you, but it seems to me that it would take a long time to prove that electronic communications of hundreds of millions of Americans that are either sent out of country or received from out of country isn't covered under the first amendment, let alone prove that all of them are foreign agents.
Now, according to the law, the government has the burden of proof. Since Bush's program probes the contents of so many conversations, it would be practically impossible for Bush to provide sufficient evidence that what they were sending or receiving wasn't covered under the first amendment. Therefore, if Bush can't supply the evidence, the program is illegal and the fact that it is allowed to keep going is also illegal. - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@TubaTechno
accusing people of political ignorance is no way to get them on your side - celopes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No, don't let your blind faith fool you! Being critical of what is wrong is part of what being American is all about.
If my math is not off, that is 0.5% of a budget raise... Well, from 2005 to 2006 the department of energy's budget decreased 2%:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/browse.html
And let's not ignore the fact that the budget for the department of energy won't go completely to alternative energy. Heck that raise probably doesn't cover personnel raises.
As much as just because the press says it, it doesn't mean it is true; just because a press-release from the government spins it in a good light, it doesn't mean it is accurate or doesn't require interpretation. - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4BTW Tuba, I get it you like Bush and you'll say anything to defend him, you're not the only one. Me, I like being on the side of the truth and what is right.
kind of reminds me of a quote:
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"
-Bill Clinton - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't think you are understanding this, first you site that
"FISA permits the President to authorize the Justice Department to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance for up to one year without a court order"
the thing I would have to ask is, didn't you know this has been going on since just after 9/11/2001, exceeding the one year limit. - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4split hairs all you want TubaTechno, but again I'll refer you to the list of articles below and if you need more I'll give them to you.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5061845
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/21/politics/main1150626.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012300754.html
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/02/specter-bill-would-require-fisc.php - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6TubaTechno, I'm a liberal and in the comment just above yours, in the first line I said "Clinton committed perjury", I've never denied it. Liberals just get upset because the whole thing was just a ridiculous witch hunt to start out.
- jasonshaffer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Metman I think he was being sarcastic. :)
- jocknerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When did Bush push for alternative energy? Maybe he mentioned we needed to look at alternative energies in one of his speeches. But talk is BS. Did he increase funding in the research of alternative energies?
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3by the way, the American Bar Association is on my side of the issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#Legal_issues - Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Metman - you're absolutely right. However, the president IS a figure-head, if only that. Take Katrina for instance. People are quick to point out that it wasn't a failing of Bush himself, but of the myriad government programs who fumbled the ball repeatedly over the next 72 hours. That's true, very true.
However, any president who gave two craps about the country he purports to love & protect would have used his 'star power' to get the thing done. If he had come on television and made orders - even those which he was not 'officially' able to make - they would have been carried out, if for no other reason than to maintain appearances. Because you're right - if people realized that he was just a leaf on the wind in this power-structure, they would have started looking more carefully.
In my mind, none of these facts removes him from personal responsibility. He's the f'cking president, and if nothing else, he's been instrumental in creating the mindset in America that's allowed these other travesties to take place. He could raise hell. He could use what power he does have for the betterment of our country. He could use the apparent hypnotic effect he has over much of our populace to calm our fears and push us to take the reins back from our overwhlemingly corrupt officials. But he does nothing.
Again, he may not have the real power to change things himself - you're right about that. But he helps convince us that our very real power is futile as well, and that's a damned shame. - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's just not a big deal. Especially in the sense that it doesn't affect the job he does as president, and that it really isn't an issue that affects how the nation is run.
- leafeater, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ROTFL! Thanks for cheering me up.
@Metman: come on, have a laugh. Or do you take http://omgwtf.superlime.com/nasa2.jpg just as serious? - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@TubaTechno
"Typical illogical arguments from diggers..."
being dismissive of others who differ in opinion from you shows your argument can't be won on merit. Digg is an excellent random sampling of the population, and yes it leans a bit left. But you can always go read the Drudge Report.
BTW Tuba, I'm going to keep coming back here proving your lies to be wrong until this story gets pushed back far enough from the homepage just so you don't spread your misinformation to others - MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well this just brought something to mind. The argument I always here when I am critical of the warentless wiretapping is this:
"If you don't have anything to hind, then what's wrong with you being watched?"
Sounds kind of ironic now. - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Smoove
ok, I'll prove it to you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jefferson_Clinton#Impeachment_in_the_House
in the first line of the section titled Impeachment in the House. You should stop trying - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Tuba, just cause you can't understand it doesn't mean it lacks logic, others must see it, that's why my comments are dugg up and yours are modded down.
- leafeater, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is absolutism in it's purest form (the leader is not subject to his own laws)!
- pbarnes7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Metman said:
"Seriously, you may want to take a look at who is on the Appropriations Committee, National Security Committee, Select on Intellegence (House) and Select Intellegence Committees (Senate). If these people did not approve the funding and the who/what it never could have happened. It is ALL a matter of public record and no one ever looks - not even the people that know better. Its more beneficial to use the 'publicity' to push thier agenda (albeit right or wrong as a matter opinion)."
Sorry but you got this wrong. The Appropriations Committee funds at much higher levels than this and there's lots of line items for these sort of "black bag" operations hidden appropriations to totally-unreleated departments (e.g. Agriculture) that the CIA, NSA, DOD, etc use to fund their pet projects they don't want anyone to know about. This isn't conspiracy theory; just the fact that some of these programs can only be effective if your average foreign spy or terrorist doesn't know they exists.
To the more general point, why is it surprising that the head of the Executive Branch should squash an investigation by the Justice Department, who's part of the Executive Branch? The "check and balance" for that is the requirement that these is the Congressional Intelligence Committees, that Bush has totally kept in the dark, which is quite illegal.
There are definitely other power brokers, but they get their power by the President either directly giving them authority to act as they see fit or by ignoring their actions and letting them run amok. But, given this presidency, it seems like more a case of the former than the latter. - forgiste, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4just to spite ig33k010011, bush did some good with trying to push alternative energy. I really respect that. It's just that the momentous amount of bad that he's done has pretty much cancelled out any good. I'm sure before Watergate, some people said that Nixon did some good too.
- rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The obvious response to that is that the argument uses several logical fallacies and that the program breaks the law.
First off the logical fallacies. The phrase, "If you don't have anything to hide, then what's wrong with you being watched?" is a another way of saying the classical argument "nothing to hide, nothing to fear."
This argument easily contains the following logical fallacies:
-Appeal to probability
-Correlation implies causation
-Hasty generalization
-False dilemma
An appeal to probability is when the argument assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. In this case, the argument, "If you don't have anything to hide, then what's wrong with you being watched?" is another way of saying "if you don't like being watched, it's possible that you could have something to hide, therefore you do have something to hide."
Correlation implies causation happens when two events that occur together are prematurely claimed to be cause and effect. An example would be to say, "Ice-cream sales are strongly (and robustly) correlated with crime rates." "Therefore, higher ice-cream sales cause crime." In this case, the argument, "If you don't have anything to hide, then what's wrong with you being watched?" is another way of saying "People who have nothing to hide don't mind being watched. Therefore, you having something to hide is the cause of your reluctance to being watched."
Hasty generalization the logical fallacy of reaching an inductive generalization based on too little evidence. In this case, the argument, "If you don't have anything to hide, then what's wrong with you being watched?" is another way of saying "You don't like being watched. Therefore, you have something to hide."
Finally, a false dilemma involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more alternate options which have not been considered. These are commonly used in rhetorical questions. An example would be the question, "Are you with us, or with the forces of racism and oppression?" Another example would be the phrase, "You're either with us or against us." In this case, the argument, "If you don't have anything to hide, then what's wrong with you being watched?" is a perfect example. Also, it's another way of saying, "You either have something to hide or you don't mind being watched." This is commonly used in politics.
Probably the most quintessential example of a false dilemma was the daisy girl political commercial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_(television_commercial)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg
Second, why the surveillance program is illegal:
TubaTechno posted this earlier:
"Second, FISA permits the President to authorize the Justice Department to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance for up to one year without a court order. 50 U.S.C. §1802(a)(1). [17] In this situation, the surveillance must be directed solely at communications used exclusively by foreign powers; United States citizens can be considered agents of a foreign power, but not solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 50 U.S.C. §1805(a)(3)."
According to this law, in order for the president to conduct domestic surveillance for a year without a warrant on a US citizen is if the US citizen is considered to be a foreign agent. Now, a US citizen can only be considered a foreign agent if the contents of communication under surveillance provided by the US citizen isn't covered by the first amendment. (State secrets, etc...)
So, since Bush's program targets hundreds of millions of Americans, it's practically impossible for the administration to provide proof that the contents of the communications aren't covered by the first amendment. Therefore, since Bush can't provide the proof necessary, the program is illegal. - KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3edited
- inactive, on 03/05/2009, -0/+1BDS
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2trying to call me disingenuous, there's the proof. Ignorant to say the least.
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Smoove
There was no sexual harassment lawsuit, Clinton perjured himself at a grand jury hearing to investigate his relationship with Lewinsky. Lewinsky would have had to press charges for a sexual harassment lawsuit to take place; as far as I could tell she was ok with the whole thing. My point is that the Clinton witch hunt should have never happened in the first place, sure he should have owned up to it but the republicans shouldn't have blown this out of proportion just because they didn't own the white house. Smoove, you're grabbing at straws and playing with half a deck. - kolanos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is, of course, an Obstruction of Justice, the crime for which Richard Nixon was forced to resign.
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2From Clinton's Wikipedia article:
"As a result of allegations that he had lied during grand jury testimony regarding his relationship with Lewinsky, Clinton was the second U.S. President to be impeached by the House of Representatives."
Yes that says grand jury, Jones was another matter. - Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Yes that says grand jury, Jones was another matter."
What an idiot. The grand jury was convened to examine his perjured testimony in Paula Jones v Clinton. The perjury was committed in the Paula Jones trial in his January 17 deposition. His appearance before the grand jury on August 17 was specifically to address charges that he had perjured himself in the January 17 deposition.
For some real sources see (Even citing Wikipedia in this case, where a highly controversial topic is open to edits by anyone, and in which the sequence of events isn't remotely provided, is just stupid.):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/starr080798.htm
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm - greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1its called sarcasm moron.
- KissTheRing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1removed
- Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"At the time, the office said it could not obtain security clearance to examine the classified program."
"Last week, under a deal with Specter, Bush agreed conditionally to a court review of his antiterror eavesdropping operations."
Love the article headline. It certainly doesn't go out of its way to explain the entire situation.
Why is the Gonzales quote being focused on when a court review has been approved? Approval for an investigation would seem to make earlier problems with top secret security clearances null and void. - Metman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Put down the pipe and back slowly away from the keyboard.
"there are no terrorists living here " - uhm - wrong. 3 were arrested down the street from me in Seattle. They were funneling money to Al Queda and admitted doing so under oath (along with various anti-American threats).
"there are no terrorists anywhere in the world" - probably easy to say if you have never left your own country. I have been fortunate enough to have been able to travel all over the world as a civilian and I have seen first had the destruction left behind in terror attacks.
"He personally caused all terrorist activity for the past 20 years " - Hey is that Bush waving to the crowd from the Zodiac speeding torward the USS Cole?
"he stole the presidency" - OMG and they faked the landing on the moon.
YOU are the reason I believe in Natural Selection. It is people like YOU who blame everything on the president and continue to vote in the Congressmen that pass the resolutions and bills that allow all the things you blame the president for to go on.. and on.. (I do not like Bush - but if you take 30 mins a week you will find that the Congress is supporting all the things we are upset about. Without that support he would not be able to do any of it. It is ALL a matter of public record.) People like you are too lazy to put any real effort into you political system, would rather be lazy and point the blame after the fact.... pathetic. - Metman, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Case in point.
It was a sexual harrasment lawsuit! If it was your wife or girlfriend you would certainly feel different. This is exactly my point! It had NOTHING to do with Monica Lewinski... yet everyone focuses on that and ignores what the case was about and more importantly WHY it was brought about. It was not some @#$#ing right wing conspiracy that brough the lawsuit! It was a women who was later proven to be IN FACT sexually harassed in a civil suit.
I dont give a crap if he was a good president or bad president. He needs to obey the same laws as everyone else. Media spin and political bs clouded the actual case brought against him to the point that no one even knew what the case was about. Did he deserve to be impeached? Not my call - dont care. What I DO care about it is that when someone committs a crime, that they can be held accountable regardless of money, popularity or political affiliation. That stands true for Bush and it stands true for Clinton.
He committed the offense, was found guilty of sexual harassment in both civil and criminal proceedings (no contest agreement in Arkansas). He also committed perjury, confessed to perjury after being threatened with impeachment. It may have had personaly overtones, but it was non-the-less a valid law suit and criminal investigation for ACTUAL CRIMES. - mixelplfft, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2what will it take for you people to take your country back from the people who are stealing it from you right now?
- rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The title is a little misleading. The program is still going to be reviewed... I hope.
FTA:
"Last week, Gonzales said the bill gives Bush the option of submitting the NSA program to the intelligence court, rather than requiring the review."
It doesn't help that the sentence I quoted is the last one in the article.
A more accurate title would be:
"Bush Blocks Spying Probe In Favor of FISA Court Review"
I'm opposed to this stupid program, but the title is misleading -
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 