backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 187 comment(s) - last by mcnabney.. on Oct 22 at 12:11 AM

Your friendly phone company may have been listening to your calls.

Three top American telephone carriers -- Verizon, AT&T and Qwest -- have set what some believe may be an alarming precedent in refusing to turn over information on their wiretapping and snooping programs to the U.S. Congress.

A Congressional panel is investigating whether citizens' rights to privacy and personal freedoms were violated by executive branch mandated snooping programs, which allegedly monitor users' email and phone calls.

The phone companies claim they want to release the information, but can't.  They say that other branches of the government are preventing them from releasing the information about the Bush administration's spy programs to Congress.

AT&T Inc. General Counsel Wayne Watts wrote a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee stating, "Our company essentially finds itself caught in the middle of an oversight dispute between the Congress and the executive relating to government surveillance activities."

Congress had request three specific pieces of information.  The first was what information the carriers had turned over to government organizations without warrant.  The second question was whether they were compensated for any such occurrences.  The third question was whether they had installed any equipment for the express purpose of intercepting user emails or calls.

The three major carriers all claimed they were not at liberty to discuss any of these details.  All three carriers did submit limited reports to Congress, which did not contain any of the requested information.

Representative Ed Markey, D. Massachusetts, leads the telecommunications subcommittee and is among the congressional lawmakers frustrated by the carriers' refusal and the executive branch's secrecy.  He voiced his frustration in a public statement. "The water is as murky as ever on this issue, and it's past time for the administration to come clean."

AT&T stated that the Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, invoked the state secrets privilege to block the information request.  Qwest and Verizon say that the Justice Department is blocking the request.

Scott Stanzel, Whitehouse spokesman declined comment, as did Justice Department spokesman, Dean Boyd.

Ross Feinstein, McConnell's spokesman, defended his actions stating that the director had the power to oversee all intelligence activities, as per the 1947 National Security Act.

Verizon did provide Congress with one piece of information.  It said that the Bush administration asked it to find information on the "calling circle" for specific telephone numbers, without warrant.  Verizon claims to have refused this request as it states that it does not have the capabilities to gain such information.

Michael McConnell has tried to defend these carriers and said that they should be given immunity from lawsuits and due process.

Currently AT&T and Verizon are the target of suits for providing customer information to the government.

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Democrats' No. 2 Senate leader, has vowed to fight giving these carriers immunity from due process of the law.

The Congressional inquiries follow a July temporary measure which allows spy agencies to continue intercepting, without a court warrant, phone calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists.  The measure, named the "Protect America Act of 2007" was covered here at DailyTech.

The Congress is researching the issue as it is mulling over new surveillance legislation.

House democrats are proposing legislation named the "RESTORE Act", which would perpetuate certain warrantless surveillance for antiterrorism purposes, but would impose clear limitations to the scope of the powers and a rigid process to be followed.  House republicans are largely opposed to this measure as they would prefer more open ended powers and freedom from oversight.

The issue of spying is a thorny one.  Phone companies are uncomfortable with their customers finding out that they have been spied upon.  The government is uncomfortable with its citizens finding out they are being spied upon.  Yet, for better or worse, the Bush administration is pushing for continued surveillance privileges as the Congress tries to limit and control these privileges.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Let the paranoia begin...
By jskirwin on 10/18/2007 9:27:37 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Yet, for better or worse, the Bush administration is pushing for continued surveillance privileges as the Congress tries to limit and control these privileges.


This is not a battle between the Bush administration and a democrat controlled congress regarding the legality of this surveillance. This is a battle between the Executive and Legislative branches over the limits to the surveillance.

This is more of a cat-fight between two of the three branches of government, with the telcos in the middle than it is a Bush-Cheney assault on the Constitution.




RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By Proteusza on 10/18/2007 10:12:55 AM , Rating: 4
The government is all for openness and honesty.

That is, they want you to be open and honest, while they cover everything up, and in return allow their corporate lackies whatever they want.

Democracy is brilliant, isnt it? This is exactly what I would vote for, hell yeah I'd pay tax dollars to be spied on!


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By mdogs444 on 10/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By OrSin on 10/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By mdogs444 on 10/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 10:51:00 AM , Rating: 4
The OP is really saying that lots of American companies are making a lot of money (billions, not millions) due to the Iraq war. It's obviously a spending free-for-all - they're practically giving away the money. Billions of dollars are lost or missing. You can't deny that.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By mdogs444 on 10/18/2007 10:54:25 AM , Rating: 2
That part i would definately agree.

It sounded like he was claiming that individual companies are working with the government to profit billions from dead soldiers. Just wasnt explained right.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By mars777 on 10/18/2007 6:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
The Oil industry and the Weapon industries make pleasant money from wars. If there is connection with the government this is a debate. But right now there is no evidence, and i hardly believe that there will ever be.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By JustinChase on 10/19/2007 2:22:16 AM , Rating: 3
The fact that Chaney is the former chairman and CEO of Halliburton before his current stint as puppet-master general is not evidence of corporate ties to the current administration!?!?!?

Hello, McFly, anyone home?

Halliburton was given Billions (yes, with a bit B) in no-bid government contracts to "help rebuild Iraq." Have a look...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121004A.shtml

What more evidence would you like to see? Try Google.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By Oregonian2 on 10/18/2007 9:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
AFAIK most of the missing money is missing in Iraq with Iraqi contractors.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By retrospooty on 10/18/2007 10:54:00 AM , Rating: 3
"Please tell me what executives are making millions on dying soldiers. "

Business partners of George Bush, and Dick Cheney for starters.

Ever wonder why Haliburton bids $50 million dollars to rebuild an Iraqi bridge destroyed in the war, and the Iraqi company that built it in the first place bids $.5 mill and Haliburton wins the bid? Haliburton bids 100x higher price and wins the bid... THAT is why Bush and Cheney have us there, and THAT is where our money is going. To feed the coffers of the Executive branches corporate allies. They dont care how many of our soldiers die, nor do they care what happens to Iraq and its people.

Welcome to reality folks. We've been had, and continue to take it, and act like its not happening.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By mdogs444 on 10/18/2007 10:58:56 AM , Rating: 2
I think its absolutely absurd and sick to even say that.

The Bush administration I would agree is not acting like a typical Conservative administration because spending has been out of control and not controlled by a typical fiscally conservative adminstration.

But to say that they dont care how many of our people die is terrible. Of course they do, and for you to say that makes you just as bad as the extremist on the other side of the political spectrum.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By retrospooty on 10/18/2007 11:03:15 AM , Rating: 1
Then you, are both in heavy denial,and part of the problem.

I am not an extremist at all. People need to know the truth, and wake up to what our govt is doing so that we can make better choices.

Knowledge = better ability to make the right choice. The Bush administration is all about spreading lies to get what they want. They are the exact opposite of their term "support the troops" How is putting the troops in harms way to advance their own financial/political gains seen as "support". Lies, thats how.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By zombiexl on 10/18/2007 11:13:28 AM , Rating: 2
Your complete ignorance of what security means is the problem.

I like to use WWII as an example, so i'll use it again. Had we told the people in the US everything that they wanted to know about the war it would have been a failure. You cant give away infromation about who you are watching, etc without the enemy getting their hands on it as well.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By retrospooty on 10/18/2007 11:23:18 AM , Rating: 2
WWII as an example is totally bunk. That was a just war with a good cause and was not for financial gain, it WAS for freedom. And I believe YOUR complete ignorance of what security means is the problem (you and the shrinking #'s of others that still support this war).

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" - Ben Franklin.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By tigen on 10/18/2007 4:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
"it WAS for freedom"

Except it wasn't really. The war started specifically because of Poland. Why did the Allies ally with Stalin, if they were concerned about freedom? At the end of the war, the Soviets controlled Europe from east Germany eastward, including Poland. Those countries weren't "free" until relatively recently.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By mdogs444 on 10/18/2007 4:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
And Putin still wants them back. Another reason we should trust a thing out of that guys mouth. Thats just besides the fact that he supplies weapons to Iran and other middle eastern nations.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By mdogs444 on 10/18/2007 4:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another reason we should trust a thing


Supposed to read: Another reason we shouldn't trust a thing

*i hate not having an edit button* lol


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By evildorf on 10/18/2007 4:52:43 PM , Rating: 3
Putin is certainly a shifty one, but we (USA) also supply weapons to middle eastern nations.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By retrospooty on 10/18/2007 6:04:58 PM , Rating: 4
With regard to teh US involvement in both Europe and Japan it was. You are right about Stalin, but your post neglected 2 minor WW2 thing
1. Hitler (remember him?) He was working toward taking over the world.

2. Pearl Harbor (remember that?) We were attacked, a dorect sneak assault on our military base.

Those 2 things make it a just cause. Iraq is nothing like that.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By rdeegvainl on 10/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By retrospooty on 10/19/2007 10:47:56 AM , Rating: 4
Pearl Harbor does not equal 9/11

PH was acountry attacking a US base - Our response was war on that country .

9/11 was Osama, and Al Qaeda attacking US soil. - Our response (and I agree with it) was attacking Afganistan and trying to get Osama, we also disrupted Al Qaeda ops worldwide. So far so good USA.

then came Iraq - they had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing at all.

It would be as if we attacked the Phillipines because of Pearl Harbor. Why do people not seem to get that?


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By Pneumothorax on 10/19/2007 11:38:43 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm.. I would think Hitler makes Saddam look like a kindergarden teacher...


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By XesBOX on 10/21/2007 4:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, don't quote a political figure to make your argument sound smarter; it doesn't.

Second of all, the warnings on Pearl Harbor went entirely ignored. Period. Not for any other reason than the fact that war is profitable. We committed many many acts AGAINST the Japanese to entice them to attack. It worked. We let it happen. It wasn't the first OR the last time a *MILITARIZED ZONE* was attacked as if every protective entity had it's back turned.

The problem with compassionate people being ruled by mongering dictators is those individuals will never admit they don't have a choice. Once they've admitted they have no choice, they would be admitting to slavery.

The administration isn't racist. The administration isn't biased or immoral. They are simply consumed by their own greed. And as much good as it would do to sit and have a lovely afternoon tea with insurgents to talk about their anger, asking a group of men (and women) like those involved in our currently installed government to be 'less greedy' would be just as successful.

Most of them know what's coming. They know that they will not forever be able to circumvent the compassion of the people. Like a grand-prize winner in a money tube, the president and his lackeys are merely doing what most slaves of the dollar would do; grab as much as you can as quickly as you can.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 11:23:24 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with to a certain degree, however, there is a balancing act between secrecy and accountability that has to be considered. In addition to our government's ability to keep secrets, it also has a long history of abusing its powers.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By Polynikes on 10/18/2007 11:54:47 AM , Rating: 4
The simple fact of the matter is that the Executive branch wiretapped without a warrant. That's unconstitutional. Now Congress wants the records. That information should be open for the Legislative branch to see, as it was evidence of an unconstitutional action done by the Executive branch.

Any argument of "That's not safe, we need to maintain security" is bunk. The information is of no threat to anyone if Congress is going over it. It doesn't need to be seen by the public; Congress just needs to see it to act on it. The executive branch isn't allowing that, which is wrong.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 12:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
It's only a simple situation if you ignore the realities that actually make it complicated. For example, think about the political motivations behind the requests - clearly there are many in Congress that would like to use this situation for their own political gain, at the expense of the President.

In addition, can this Congress be truly trused with this type of information? There are so many leaks in Washington - there is some merit to the idea that the fewer people who know what is really going on the better.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By Polynikes on 10/19/2007 8:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
I don't care if they have political motivations or not. Bush and his administration did something wrong and deserve to be held accountable.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By rcc on 10/18/2007 4:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any argument of "That's not safe, we need to maintain security" is bunk. The information is of no threat to anyone if Congress is going over it. It doesn't need to be seen by the public;


That may well be the first time I've seen someone comment that Congress "can" keep secrets. Regardless of the way I feel about the rest of this issue, if you pass it to Congress you might as well publish it in the Washington Post.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By Durrr on 10/19/2007 6:23:42 AM , Rating: 2
Where in the constitution does it say that you have a reasonable right to privacy? It doesn't, however, that is a precedent set by the Supreme Court.

I really hate when people interject constitutionality into every argument that comes up.

Just a FYI, those no bid contracts were bid on, but they are bid on in 10 year contracts for wartime support. It was an action set forth first in the Clinton administration in the US's support of rebuilding Kuwait.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By mcnabney on 10/22/2007 12:11:35 AM , Rating: 2
The first and fourth amendments create the right to privacy.

And in this country the executive branch has to get a warrant from the judicial branch to seize evidence in order to enforce laws created by the legislative branch . It is called separation of powers and it is a very good thing.

What we have now is the executive branch taking whatever evidence it wants without working with justice and without oversight of the legislature.

When power is united strictly under the executive branch it is called a dictatorship. Learn from history!


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By Frallan on 10/18/2007 11:15:18 AM , Rating: 1
Ohh they care just as much as you do when playing a C&C game...


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By redbone75 on 10/18/2007 4:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Bush administration I would agree is not acting like a typical Conservative administration because spending has been out of control and not controlled by a typical fiscally conservative adminstration.

But to say that they dont care how many of our people die is terrible. Of course they do, and for you to say that makes you just as bad as the extremist on the other side of the political spectrum.


I would venture to say that you are a damned fool to think otherwise when all of the evidence points to the contrary. This whole f#$@ing war is a capitalist venture, and to have our soldiers remain there is an insult to the military men and women who continue to serve and die there. Bush is a cynic, and to say that he cares about the men and women dieing in Iraq above his own agenda is preposterous at best. This administration has used every tactic in the book, and has even created new ones, to sidestep the controversies of this war. I'm not calling into question at all your patriotism or anything of the sort, but it would seem you trust the government and what they tell you just a little too much. Trust the government, but only so far as you can question and witness their actions.

You talk about getting rid of welfare, and I'm for it, but so many programs that would be beneficial to this country are denied funding, funding that is a pittance compared to what is being spent on this war, and that's not counting the money that just seems to disappear there. We're talking about billions of dollars unaccounted for in audits. Billions. Tell me that this administration cares. Please. Tell me and make it believable.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By mdogs444 on 10/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By mdogs444 on 10/18/2007 4:13:30 PM , Rating: 1
As much as you might blame Bush, you do know the Senate has to approve the spending. Thats both democrats and republicans. And as I stated, this administration is frustrating even many republicans because they are not acting fiscally conservative.

However, your first paragraph about all the capitalist conspiracies is all liberal bullshit to end the war, get democratic control of office, and introduce socialism.

I do not buy the liberal mumbo jumbo that MSNBC uses to brainwash its viewers.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By sinful on 10/18/2007 7:51:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
do not buy the liberal mumbo jumbo that MSNBC uses to brainwash its viewers.

Yeah, watch Fox News instead - They're fair & balanced!

LOL


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By mdogs444 on 10/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By sinful on 10/18/2007 9:02:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
ABC, NBC, MSNBC, etc are extremely liberal media


All I can do is laugh.

Fox has a Wikipedia article DEDICATED to their allegations of Bias!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_cont...

Oh, in MSNBC's wikipedia entry, they have a section on bias - which includes accusations of them being CONSERVATIVE. LOL.

If you think FOX is "middle of the road", you need to watch other media sources. Try watching the BBC for a while (widely cited as the least tilted news organization). Your head will explode without the constant glowing praise that Fox heaps upon Republicans.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By zombiexl on 10/18/2007 11:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
Do you have specific details of this 100x the price bridge?

Lets assume you do for a minute (who knows maybe bill maher, al franken or dan rather gave it to you)... .

Do you know what the Iraqi company had to back up their bid? Most government contracts require more than just sayin oh yeah we can do it for this price.

Is the war working out perfectly? hell no. Is the problem what it's costing? No, its the time it's taking.

I beleive the problem is trying to fight a clean war. If we fought WWII the same way we wopuld all be under german rule right now. You can sit here an speak about liberty and freedom all day, but you dont seem to understand it comes at a price. Ask yourself. When is the last time I made a sacrifice for my freedom?


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By retrospooty on 10/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By zombiexl on 10/18/2007 11:35:50 AM , Rating: 1
You dont buy my liberty at a price argument becuase we have become content with just bitching and never acting.

Iraq failed to comply with countless UN resolutions. The UN was ASKED to join the war, they failed to follow up on their promises. A resolutions is useless if there is no consequence.

It would be like saying murder is wrong, but if you murder someone we'll tall you again not to do it. Eventually you have to do something. Just because the UN has failed in their obligations doesnt mean that the country who supplies 22% of the UN funding has to sit on their hands too..

Sadam was also a madman. He butchered his own people. Just becuase it didnt threaten to spread right now didnt mean it wouldn't. There was a reason for the resolutions.

Should we be in Iraq right now? Not if G HW B had finished the job, but since he didnt his son got stuck doing it for him.

Since you want to talk political wrongdoing. Look up info on charlie tree and his connection to the clinton's specifically fundraising and sequentially numbered money orders all with the same mis-spelling. Also his background and connection to the chinese gov and how the Bill handed him security access.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By retrospooty on 10/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 11:58:01 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that the UN Security Council is ineffective. Writing resolutions without taking the initiative to enforce them doesn't work. Unfortunately, the side-effect of their disfunction is that the U.S. is forced to sometimes make decisions like with Iraq, which increases the opportunity to make mistakes.

I don't think the UN has "clean hands" in dealing with Iraq - they failed to solve the problem. Our solution isn't a good solution, but at least it is solved. The UN shares some blame for the outcome.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By retrospooty on 10/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By FITCamaro on 10/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By retrospooty on 10/18/2007 1:03:22 PM , Rating: 1
"And who do you think knows more about what is where? Bush who has access to some of the most sophisticated intelligence equipment in the world and the resulting data? Data that I doubt we share all of even with the UN. Or you? I won't even pretend to know or comprehend the stuff the CIA knows and we aren't told. Nor do I need to know. I'm sure there's things even Bush doesn't know."

You just buy it all hook line and sinker dont ya? But you do bring up a good point (for me, not for you). You are correct, the Bush admin had access to some of the most sophisticated intelligence equipment in the world and the resulting data. And that date, and the advisors including Colin Powell told him there aren't any and that there weren't any and not to go in. He willfully lied to congress and to the public to get what he wanted.

Steven Colbert had a funny one, that is really true, sadly you are still buying it...

This administration doesn't make decisions based on facts, they make facts based on decisions.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By zombiexl on 10/18/2007 1:36:05 PM , Rating: 4
Since we are talking comedy.
I think Louis Black said it best when he said. (not an exact quote).

the Republican Party is the party of bad ideas, and the Democratic Party is the party of no ideas.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 1:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ever think they got moved out of the country before we got there?

I personally believe that if that happened, we would have found evidence to support that as well. Considering what was at stake, I believe that a very thorough effort was made to find WMDs, and I'm sure that a part of that was trying to track them if they were hidden, destroyed, or shipped out of Iraq. So far, no publicly-available evidence seems to support anything of the sort.

In any case, if he got rid of all the WMDs before we invaded, it again effectively made the "reason" we invaded Iraq disappear. So in that case it was a bad decision as well.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By geddarkstorm on 10/18/2007 1:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
For the record chemical WMDs have been found in Iraq. Moreover, Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds, so he certainly had them in the past too--and then after the agreement after 1991's war to destroy them all in defiance of that agreement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic... (most recent finding showing stuff made just prior to the invasion)
http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=1873019&nav...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=0606220555... (which goes to show Saddam didn't comply. Wonder why the "there were no WMDs!" harping has stopped from the left and basically dropped from the news? Because we did find some.)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/30/un.gas/index.html (The UN also has chemical weapons! WE MUST INVADE! (if people don't realize that last one as a joke, I think we're all screwed too tight lol))


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By First on 10/18/2007 3:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
Your own links confirm your story is bunk; those were pre-91 non-functional WMDs, stated the very articles you link, i.e. NOT the WMDs the American people were told they were looking for. What we were told about was mobile weapons labs and functional WMDs that posed a direct threat to U.S. national security. Those WMDs found last year posed no threat according to our own gov't, i.e. the Pentagon.

And to top it off, the administration itself has conceded that no WMDs were found, and has conceded this far at least two years now. To claim otherwise is to be in some form of deep denial.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By sinful on 10/18/2007 8:12:16 PM , Rating: 3
Did you even read your cited articles?!?!?!

quote:
A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for." ........
The Iraqis were very capable of producing such shells in the 1980s but it's not as clear that they continued after the first Gulf War , so officials are reluctant to guess the age of the shell or the capacity of the Iraqis prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom to produce such shells.


quote:
Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 . The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found.


Call me crazy, but "No such weapons or factories were found" seems to be completely opposite of the conclusion you've drawn. In fact, given the fact they started making them AFTER we invaded, I'd say we accomplished the complete OPPOSITE of what we wanted.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By FITCamaro on 10/18/2007 12:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The UN is an ineffective body that has no ability to back up what it says. The US does that for them whether they like it or not.

Since its inception, the UN has been a powerless, spineless entity that does nothing but waste time and US taxpayer money.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By tigz1218 on 10/18/2007 12:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
people like you are why we havent won a major war since ww2 ...stop being a little sissy and man up ....i bet your one of those people who has a bumper sticker that says "support your country , Bring home the troops now!" ....thats just a liberals way of waiving the white flag like they have been since ww2...my 2 best friends are in the army and i would hate to see anything bad happen to them, but they knew full well of their duties before joining the army and ....i support the troops and i support the war and i support my country (and my friends like that i support them AND the war)... i havent forgotten 911 you prolly have...and if we leave iraq now what does that say to the rest of terrorists around the world ? it says that we lost and even the most powerful military in the world could not take them down, we would see a huge rise in terrorists attacks and when it happens you will be first one crying and yelling we should have never gave up in iraq .....im done ranting im getting too angry


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 12:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
people like you are why we havent won a major war since ww2 ...stop being a little sissy and man up

I don't think you're replying to me, but I'd like to respond anyway. I don't think you're being intellectually honest about the situation. The problem with the Iraq war is that it is not justified. The troops are doing a great job following their orders, but the problem is that the orders were wrong.

Worse yet, again due to a bad strategy, we have actually created a situation in Iraq that is worse for us than when Hussain was in power. I'm of course talking about the fact that Iraq is now a fertile ground for terrorist operations, whereas in Hussain's time, groups like al Queda were not tolerated.

And finally, you bring up 9/11, however I would remind you that there was no connection between Iraq/Hussain and 9/11 - none.

I think people sometimes mix up all these ideas and use these to criticize Americans who do not support the war. Please understand is it more complex than that.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By tigz1218 on 10/18/2007 12:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
i was replying to retro not you tom


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By retrospooty on 10/18/2007 12:55:14 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly, and thank you...

Tigs1218, you are seriously misguided and/or delusional to think that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and that leaving will make us less safe.

The Islamic extremists hate us and want us out of their region of the world. Us being there makes us less secure, the latest round of hatred for the US and our policies all started when (in their opinion), we butted our noses into Iraq in the early 1990's and we had no right to be there. They will continue to attack and hate us as long as we are meddling in their region, they want us out, and us being there only serves to magnify their hatred into small bands of terrorist candidates.

The Bush admin asks us believe that we are there to make ourselves more secure, but by now we should all be well aware that the Bush admin is WRONG in every assumption they have made about this war .Every single thing they say and every step they take is an error. We need to stop buying hte poop they are selling. How many incorrect descision must we let them make before we stop thier ability to make them.

Please, try and open your eyes just a little to the world you live in.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By Gibby82 on 10/18/2007 5:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
Terrorists weren't tolerated? Are you kidding me? The Iraqi army was pretty much a huge government funded terrorist group, except they attacked their own.

You people...gahhh. War is bad, yeah I get it. But it's NOT going away. It's been around for our entire existence. It is happening now and it WILL happen again. Just face facts and realize the human civilization is not as "civilized" as we think.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 8:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Terrorists weren't tolerated? Are you kidding me? The Iraqi army was pretty much a huge government funded terrorist group, except they attacked their own.

Wrong. While the Iraqi army may have been a bunch of thugs, they were not out to kill Americans. Hussain also hated al Queda and didn't tolerate them within Iraqi borders. The Iraqi army certainly didn't pose any threat to us.

But now with the Hussein regime gone, al Queda has a lot more freedom (and motivation!) to operate in Iraq. Therefore, we have made that particular situation worse.

For the record, I'm just stating facts here; this is not a matter of opinion.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By athlonotaku on 10/18/2007 12:19:23 PM , Rating: 3
The reason the UN didn't respond was because some of the top UN countries were too busy getting rich off of the food for oil program...


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By zombiexl on 10/18/2007 1:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason the UN didn't respond was because some of the top UN countries were too busy getting rich off of the food for oil program...


DING DING DING...

We have a winner.

Except its actually called Oil for Food :)


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By mdogs444 on 10/18/2007 1:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
If it were only that easy for me to trade in a crummy Crepe for a tank of gas! LOL


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By Ryanman on 10/20/2007 8:29:01 PM , Rating: 1
Were the Iraqi's/Saddam giving the finger to the UN? Yeah. Wanna know why? it's a powerless, simplisticly hopeful and theoretical body. It wasn'ut our buisness to do something nobody else on the planet would do.
You know what I wish? We hadn't killed Saddam. Given, he was an evil dictator but do you have any idea how difficult it is to keep these zealot ANIMALS in check? they've killed more of each other than any soldier or army possibly could, short of nuclear weaponry.
All the bleeding heart liverals are right.. we should never have come to Iraq to keep innocent people from dying. Too bad the only reason that rings true is because you need a heartless dictator to keep fellow iraqis from killing each other.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By drebo on 10/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 3:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
Huh, are you joking? The OP was talking about WWII. Are you drunk right now? :o)


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By drebo on 10/18/2007 4:36:30 PM , Rating: 1
Right, he was justifying our position in WWII based on the fact that we were attacked. I was simply pointing out that we were also attacked this time, and, that attack was what prompted our initiative in the Middle East in the first place.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 5:03:35 PM , Rating: 3
The only problem with that line of reasoning is that we were attacked by al Queda, and in turn, we invaded Iraq, which had no relationship with al Queda or 9/11.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By Donkeyshins on 10/19/2007 4:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if you wanted to attack the country with the greatest connection to the people that committed the 9/11 attacks, then we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. Whoops.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By bodar on 10/18/2007 4:00:40 PM , Rating: 4
Hate to break it to you, but Japan is a country and the Middle East is a region. We were not attacked by an entire region, but an Islamic extremist (<- important word here) faction made up of people from that particular region.

To hold an entire group of countries responsible for the actions of a few is irresponsible at best, much in the same way that stereotyping all Muslims as violent and dangerous is ridiculous. Clearly that doesn't fit into your black-and-white, "they-hate-us-for-our-freedoms" world view. Islamic extremists have a similar one, and it's just as retarded.

In other news: I think I just 100% agreed with TomZ. I need to lie down... ;)


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By drebo on 10/18/2007 4:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To hold an entire group of countries responsible for the actions of a few


When that entire group of countries is known for protecting and harboring the few, then they are responsible (albeit indirectly) for the actions of those few.

If I hide a murderer in my home, regardless of the reason, I am just as responsible for the people he murders as he is. The act of protecting and harboring enables future murders to take place, which makes me responsible. The same holds true for countries who harbor terrorists.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By bodar on 10/18/2007 8:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
Harboring is not the same as they hide out there, and there has been no proven link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, other than Al Qaeda comes to Iraq for their chance to blow up our soldiers. The biggest problem with the War on Terror is that it is borderless. In WWII, our enemies were sovereign nations, and now they are in many places at once. You can't put embargoes on them; you don't even know where they live exactly.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By Oregonian2 on 10/18/2007 9:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, I think you're making up those bid numbers. Second of all haliburton can actually make the bridge (if that's what they do). Massive money has been paid to Iraqi contractors with an empty lot showing the result.

Haliburton is a very large company that actually successfully does stuff and has demonstrated abilities to do things that not many other companies can do. They aren't a fictitious company made up by Cheney to pocket money if/when he should ever work there again.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By glitchc on 10/18/2007 3:04:25 PM , Rating: 2
Try the ones at Boeing, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Hughes, Raytheon...

How about some private military contractors such as AirScan, Eastern Cross, Titan Corp. (Abu Ghraib incident come to mind?), the now infamous Blackwater Corp. ....

Need I go on?


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By mdogs444 on 10/18/2007 3:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
So basically any company who is a supplier of the government - including all of them well before the war - are now guilty of profitting off the the war?

Thats pretty ridiculous.

And of course the contractors are getting paid to be there....and they should be. They are not part of our volunteer army. I dont see the problem with them.

As far as the Abu Gharib & Blackwater Corp stuff - neither you nor I know much about the true story - its all polical garbage and accusations by the democratic party because they want to pull out of the war.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 3:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
...and discredit the President.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By glitchc on 10/18/2007 5:40:56 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So basically any company who is a supplier of the government - including all of them well before the war - are now guilty of profitting off the the war?


These are not "any" companies. These are defence contractors. As the defence budget doubles and triples, orders to these companies double and triple. Research money into new technologies for military endeavours grows substantially too. Simple economics states that if the market for your product is booming, there is a strong incentive for you to keep it that way for as long as possible. It's not ridiculous at all. It's just business.

Last I heard, none of these companies were non-profit charitable organizations. It's easy to cloud the issue with moral outrage, but we must not forget, in all of our morality how much money is actually involved. Businesses are not required to act from a moral standpoint, rather a profit one. War has always been a big business, and Western economies have padded their GDPs considerably, in the past and today, through the sale of products and technologies designed specifically for war, or "deterrence" of war, as is commonly used in such circles.

quote:
And of course the contractors are getting paid to be there....and they should be. They are not part of our volunteer army. I dont see the problem with them.


You're absolutely correct in that they have a right to be paid. Just as the volunteer army also has a right to be paid since they are putting their lives on the line for their country. Since they're both paid, the former rather extravagantly I might add, we have a moot point here.

The fact that you don't have a problem with them being there is another matter altogether. Volunteer armies function under oversight of the public. They are required to act ethically and morally, and the infrastructure possesses strong discentives in case one decideds to deviate from this moral standing. A private contractor for mercenaries, on the other hand, has only one incentive: money. Morality and ethics do not enter the equation. By providing them with immunity, we are further removing the critical oversight needed to ensure that they function under the code of ethics to which our "volunteer" army is subjected to.

quote:
polical garbage and accusations by the democratic party because they want to pull out of the war.


Political garbage and accusations? Pictures don't lie. Neither do testimonials from guards at the complex. Regardless of how you spin it, those prisoners are grossly mistreated. By who or what is irrelevant. Since they are under the care and protection, note I said "care and protection", of the guards at the complex, responsibility for their diminishing welfare falls squarely on the caretakers of said complex. Subsequently, the allegations for Blackwater Corp. are stemming from the Iraqi Govt.... Last I heard, they were put in power by Bush, so I don't know where your railing on Democrats comes in. Perhaps it would be better to factor out your political beliefs and focus on the facts.

Now, there's a common, fallacious line of reasoning which seems to sprout from the prior point, namely: "It's ok if we mistreat them, they're criminals anyhow." This would be true if we were retailiating against a country that had conclusively attacked us first. There were no Iraqis on those 9/11 planes. Iraq was never conclusively found to have WMDs. Period. The leap from Terrorists to Iraq (a dummy target) is the largest fallacy of the Bush administration.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...
By Gibby82 on 10/18/2007 5:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
You named a bunch of aircraft manufacturers whose aircraft and projects were in existence long before 9/11 (Northrop Grumman and the B-2 for example). So yeah....you're argument is useless.


RE: Let the paranoia begin...