backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 189 comment(s) - last by techhappy.. on Jul 30 at 7:57 PM
More controversy result

A report in the Washington Post said that President Bush blocked an internal investigation into the controversial NSA wire tapping program that was being put together by the Office of Professional Responsibility. The OPR launched an investigation into the NSA wire tapping program to see whether or not there were questionable activities. The wire tapping program was launched after 9/11 but Congress and the Bush administration has been arguing over its legality since.

According to the OPR, this type of block is a first in all of American history, and suspicion has mounted in regards to President Bush's decision. "Since its creation some 31 years ago, OPR has conducted many highly sensitive investigations involving Executive Branch programs and has obtained access to information classified at the highest levels," said OPR chief lawyer H. Marshall Jarrett in a memorandum. Jarret said that "in all those years, OPR has never been prevented from initiating or pursuing an investigation."

Some government officials say that Bush's decision to block the investigation is unusual. The OPR is part of the Justice Department. Because of the decision, the OPR was forced to drop the investigation on the NSA tapping program, which many government officials and outsiders previously stated was extremely controversial. The Bush administration allowed the NSA tapping program to conduct its business without first acquiring warrants from the Justice.

Representatives for the Bush administration stated that Bush's decision was based on national security, and that allowing too many people to gain knowledge of the details of the NSA program would pose a threat to that security. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told reporters that "the president decided that protecting the secrecy and security of the program requires that a strict limit be placed on the number of persons granted access to information about the program for non-operational reasons."

The program itself is allowed to be submitted to a secret government court that deals with terrorism and intelligence for review of legality, but President Bush has not yet done so.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
hehehe
By kattanna on 7/21/2006 12:50:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the president decided that protecting the secrecy and security of the program


hehehe...protecting the secrecy of the program..yeah its so secret everyone knows about it

too funny





RE: hehehe
By 05SilverGT on 7/21/2006 12:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah thanks to a news media that can't keep their mouth shut. I'm sure the German's would have loved to know all our secret programs during WW2.


RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 1:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
It is impossible to keep secrets in America like that. If the success of the program truly depended on secrecy, then it was a bad plan in the first place. Organizations like the media, watchdog groups, PACs, etc. spend considerable resources towards finding out secrets like these, especially those that would not sit well with U.S. citizens, and that might actually be illegal.


RE: hehehe
By rushfan2006 on 7/21/2006 2:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well don't know how much I'll contribute to these thread..lol...getting in a debate over the Mid-east anymore is one of those "damn if you do damn if you don't " kind of things...like its almost easier to talk about abortion.....

But just my summary....first Iraq wasn't an immediate or direct threat to the USA, that's correct. To folks who say they were never a threat, would never be a threat,etc. That is just silly.

Next...the "war or terror" is kind of BS, I'll give you that -- for more reasons than one. I don't think we should be over there...of course Hannity, Limbaugh (and while I'm at it btw..my nic "rushfan" has NOTHING to do with that guy...I'm a fan of the band rush...not the talk show host) will say otherwise and they'll cry how its essential for us to be there yadda yadda.

Terror will always exist -- in turn...terrorists will always exist, democracy won't "stick" in Iraq -- its barely working now. Again the talk show guys will say other wise of course, but its laughable how we think we can change a region of the world who hasn't known long term peace in literally thousands of years. But now we are gonna step in and go -- wait let us wipe out your government, kill everyone who was apart of the old government then we'll form a new one...and boom! "ALL BETTER!".

Not quite.

I think we (USA) should stop getting involved in everything that happens in the world. Now I hear we'll be intervining in Israel over that crisis. It just never stops. Some, rare times -- we are right and just in getting involved....like WWII. However the overwhelming amount of times we have no business and we only bring more pain and suffering through our meddling.

Beyond all that, everyone needs to realize that to really understand the situations in the mid-east you have to go back in history..you can't just be going from 2001 forward and forming opinions from there, if you are -- you don't know the half of it.



RE: hehehe
By Pirks on 7/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 4:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
It is always easy to make the argument for being more proactive, especially when you consider such extreme situations as Hitler and World War II. It is possible to use your logic to build a case to remove probably the sitting head of state of every nation in the world, based on an extrapolation of the possibilities. The reality is that a reasonable risk assessment needs to be done to determine whether such a proactive action is actually justified.

In the case of Iraq for example, Hussain's power was relatively constrained by the strength of its neighbors. Iraq possessed, at the time of our invasion, no air force, no navy, and only a very basic military (what was left after the first Gulf War). Furthermore, it was the subject of an embargo which made it impossible for it to further build any military strength, except for the possibility of some WMDs, a possibility that seems to have not been true.

So I would argue, in the case of Iraq, no credible threat actually existed. Even if it were true that Hussain had WMDs, I still don't think this changes the conclusion, since Hussain didn't seem to have the ability and/or desire to attack U.S. citizens using them. After all, Husain was a bad guy, but he did nothing to promote terrorism outside of Iraq, AFAIK.

So in the end, we took out a country that was no threat, had no clear indication of being a problem in the long term, at the expense of thousands of U.S. killed, tens or hundreds of thosands of Iraqis killed, and cost to the U.S. taxpayer well into the hundreds of billions of dollars. If this is not a failure of the super pro-active "war on terror" policy, I don't know what would be.


RE: hehehe
By Shivian on 7/23/2006 6:55:16 AM , Rating: 2
Saddam originally was fighting against Iran in a conflict that the US supported him for. Saddam was supplied weapons by the US. The US knew what he was doing to his people before this time yet they didn't do anything about it then. Why have they done something about it now? Because it suits them.


RE: hehehe
By PrinceGaz on 7/23/2006 8:17:09 AM , Rating: 3
The strange thing is that if Saddam had not invaded Kuwait and instead stayed on reasonable terms with the west, that America would be supporting Saddam again and encouraging him to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.


RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/23/2006 10:50:38 AM , Rating: 2
> "The strange thing is that if Saddam had not invaded Kuwait and instead stayed on reasonable terms with the west, that America would be supporting Saddam again "

That's like saying "had Barry Bonds not taken steroids, he'd still be idolized as a great player". Or like saying, "Had Dennis Rader not become the BTK Killer, he'd still be a respectd member of his church and community".




RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/23/2006 10:47:08 AM , Rating: 2
> "Saddam originally was fighting against Iran in a conflict that the US supported him for"

At that point in history, Iraq was seen as the lessor of two evils...and Hossein was quite moderate. It wasn't until he consolidated his grip on Iraq that his excesses began to show.

> "Saddam was supplied weapons by the US"

All his heavy weaponry was supplied by the Soviet Union, and or European nations such as France. Germany sold him outright a few plants to produce chemical weapons, and France sold a large amount of nuclear technology.

The US sold him a very tiny fraction of his arsenal, primarily C&C, comm gear, and a few light arms.

> "The US knew what he was doing to his people before this time yet they didn't do anything about it then"

Totally false. Once the news of his chemical attacks on Kurd villagers reached the West, the US instituted a total ban on arms sales to Iraq, and submitted a resolution to the UN calling for action against Iraq...a motion vetoed by the Security Council.





RE: hehehe
By retrospooty on 7/21/2006 1:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
The war on Terror is the biggest buch of BS there is. Not to say violence is justifiable under any circumstances, but the reason these extremists hate us is because of the crap our government has done, and continues to do in secrecy. Our government kills for profit, and ignores the consequences. When those consequences turn into terrorist acts against our citizens, they lie to us and act like they dont know why, and send our youth off to die for thier profits.

We voted for him (barely) now we have to live with it.

Nice job USA... Nice job.


RE: hehehe
By 05SilverGT on 7/21/2006 1:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah it is B.S. because we are pussy footing around. America kind of does a thing right and then gives into pressure. We seem to care a little too much what people think whether it is right or not. Bottom line is that these terrorists hate us, our way of life, and that fact not all of us are Islamic. Instead of worrying what people think we need to take more action now not later. We already give tons of money away every year in humanitarian aid to these countries. Their corrupt and oppressive governments horde it for themselves. The U.S. is the only country with the balls to get rid of the middle man and the terror organizations that are propped up by them. Last time I checked helping people attain freedom and choice isn’t a bad thing. This isn’t like the old days where the military only had some muskets and swords that could be matched by the general populace. It’s much harder for the people of these countries to overthrow their government. Perfect example is North Korea.


RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 1:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
The problem that the policies of the Bush Administration are way too proactive relative to the actual threat. This idea of "taking the battle to them" goes way overboard. The Iraq war, one of the results of this policy, was totally unjustified, and illustrates how ulterior motives can get co-mingled with the so-called "war on terror."

Clearly continuing to apply such a misguided policy to solve the West's problems with Syria, Iran, and N.Korea would lead to disaster. We need to return to more mild, measured military actions, along with diplomacy, economic sanctions, etc. This is the right type of response for these problems, not invasion to remove the governments. Large-scale military operations like Afghanistan and Iraq cannot become the norm.


RE: hehehe
By 05SilverGT on 7/21/2006 2:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Clearly continuing to apply such a misguided policy to solve the West's problems with Syria, Iran, and N.Korea would lead to disaster. We need to return to more mild, measured military actions, along with diplomacy, economic sanctions, etc. This is the right type of response for these problems, not invasion to remove the governments. Large-scale military operations like Afghanistan and Iraq cannot become the norm.


Because that was clearly working with Iraq? We jumped the gun but sanctions weren't working. Iran and North Korea have to be stopped in soon and probably military action will be the only way that works, at least in North Korea. Well maybe not if we can get Kim a directors job in Hollywood. He'd fit in there great.


RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 2:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because that was clearly working with Iraq?

No, the point is that Iraq was a "don't care" in the "war on terror." Iraq and Hussain's government was no threat to the US - zero - and gave little/no support to terrorists. The situation now in Iraq is really a lot worse. Terrorists are active and killing people on a daily basis. 6000 Iraqis killed in the past two months - with such violence continuing on a daily basis. Iraq is now the home to Al-Qaeda and lots of other terrorist groups. What was not a threat before, is now a threat, due to our overly proactive decision to remove Hussain's government and occupy Iraq.

Granted, Afghanistan was a slightly different situation, but with a weak government there could easily go back to what it was prior to our invasion.


RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2006 4:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
> "Iraq and Hussain's government was no threat to the US - zero "

Then why were we still patrolling the Northern and Southern No-Fly zones over Iraq, over a decade after the Gulf War ended?

By the way, you might want to look up how many times Iraq took potshots at US and British overflights during that period...each of which was, under the original peace treaty and international law, sufficient grounds for a declaration of war and invasion.


> "6000 Iraqis killed in the past two months "

At that rate, in only 500 more months, we'll match the number of Iraqis killed by Hossein.

Just curious...did you support the US attacks on Serbia? If so, why? Far fewer people were killed by Milosevich in Kosovo than the number of Kurds and Shias killed by Hossein.


RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 4:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then why were we still patrolling the Northern and Southern No-Fly zones over Iraq, over a decade after the Gulf War ended?

The original intent of these zones was to protect the rebellious Iraqi minorities (Kurds and Shiite Muslims) in northern and southern Iraq, respectively. The Coalition was permitted to fly warplanes over these zones to prevent Saddam Hussein's government from using military aircraft to attack these minorities. As time progressed though, the No-Fly Zones became a means for the Allies to force Iraq to comply with UN and Coalition demands, often related to the status of the weapons inspectors.
http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html

The threat was to Iraqis and possiblty Iranians due to the possibility of WMD, but not to U.S. citizens.
quote:
By the way, you might want to look up how many times Iraq took potshots at US and British overflights during that period...each of which was, under the original peace treaty and international law, sufficient grounds for a declaration of war and invasion.

OK, understood, and there is some threat to U.S. citizens due to that. But I don't think this ties into any threat due to terrorism.
quote:
At that rate, in only 500 more months, we'll match the number of Iraqis killed by Hossein.

I understand this; however, invading a country to remove its government is not justified due to the possibility of future atrocies. Such situations should be handled in situ, ideally by the U.N. (half-jokingly), although admittedly, the U.S. has done a poor job in this area in the past.


RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2006 5:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
> "invading a country to remove its government is not justified due to the possibility of future atrocies"

But past atrocities occurred, and were ongoing when we invaded in fact. We weren't simply hypothesizing what might occur in the future.

> "OK, understood, and there is some threat to U.S. citizens due to that. But I don't think this ties into any threat due to terrorism"

Anyone whose read the full text of any the UNMOVIC reports understands that Iraq was doing everything possible to retain elemetns of its pre-Gulf War WMD programs, and continuing new research, particularly in banned ballistic missile programs. Do you know how many banned items WERE found and destroyed by UNMOVIC, hidden away for future use?
Why would Iraq do so, unless it planned, upon the eventual termination of UN oversight, to restart these programs?

So regardless of the existence of *new* weapons, we have a situation where, either we monitor permanently, till the end of time, or at some point we withdraw, then face a new, larger threat in the future.

Remember than the IAEA (headed by Hans Blix, no less) was the agency that failed, in the 1970s, to detect Iraq's Osiraq reactor which, had Israel not destroyed it, would have given the nations nuclear weapons by the Gulf War.

Remember also that Hossein is a man who invaded Kuwait, Iran, and attempted to invade Saudi Arabia. I don't see how you can call the eventual results of such actions harmless to US citizens. He's also the man that THREW OUT UN Inspectors several times, and readmitted them only when it became clear military attack was inevitable.

Do you feel the man had somehow changed heart, simply because for 12 years the US and Britain had kept him at the point of a gun?


RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 5:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
You've made a lot of good points, and maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see how any of this ties into preventing terrorism here in the U.S., which is what the Iraq was was supposedly all about.

The other aspect of this thread was a comparison to Hitler and Nazi Germany. Do you feel that Hussain was a similar threat?

I totally agree that Hussain was a serious problem for the region, just as others are today. I just am not able to conclude that U.S. actions were justified relative to possible threats to U.S. citizens in the case of Iraq.


RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2006 5:31:24 PM , Rating: 3
> "I don't see how any of this ties into preventing terrorism here in the U.S., which is what the Iraq was was supposedly all about."

That was one of many reasons advanced for the invasion, each sufficient in of itself. As for how it relates to domestic terrorism, the argument was that Hossein, in possesion of WMD, would be a huge proliferation risk. That those weapons and technologies would be sold or traded to terrorist organizations, or to other nations, who would do the same.

Farfetched? Hezbollah is attacking Israel now, with cruise missile given to them by Iran. And the US has already intercepted several shipments of long-range missile technologiy, bound from North Korea to Iran and other destinations.

> "The other aspect of this thread was a comparison to Hitler and Nazi Germany. Do you feel that Hussain was a similar threat? "

No, I feel Hossein was a larger threat to US interests than Germany was to the US. How exactly did Germany threaten our interests? Had it not been for Pearl Harbor, we never would have entered the war...or entered it far too late to prevent the outcome.

Now let's examine the potential threat of Hossein. Assume we didn't get involved in the Gulf War. He retains control of Kuwait and, with much larger resources, eventually resumes his war with Iran. Perhaps he invades Saudi Arabia also...he was certainly lining tanks up on the border before the US arrived. Then, with four times his oil finances, resumes his nuclear program.

Now, is that a threat to our interests? Pretty much all the Mideast oil, in a nuclear-armed nation hostile to the US.





RE: hehehe
By Suomynona on 7/24/2006 10:17:27 AM , Rating: 2
So it's a-okay for the US and Israel to butcher innocent civilians, gang-rape children, and wipe out political dissidents right and left, but for freedom fighters to try to win basic human rights for the oppressed is heinous?


RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2006 11:54:09 AM , Rating: 2
> "So it's a-okay for the US and Israel to butcher innocent civilians, gang-rape children..."

I didn't see anyone condoning "gang-raping children". You are, of course, free to make whatever statements you wish. But emotional exaggerations like this hurt your case, not help it.


RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2006 5:33:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "Just curious...did you support the US attacks on Serbia? If so, why? Far fewer people were killed by Milosevich in Kosovo than the number of Kurds and Shias killed by Hossein"

To TomZ...I'd like to reiterate this question.


RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 5:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To TomZ...I'd like to reiterate this question.

Sorry, I don't have an opinion on that. I didn't follow current events closely at the time that occurred; nor have I since studied the history of what happened. Therefore, I can't really express any kind of informed decision.


RE: hehehe
By maxusa on 7/21/2006 10:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, let's get things straight. The war in Iraq was conceived and executed with primary reasons other than protecting Iraq citizens and protecting "democracy" or "freedom." The fact that the U.S. is acting as an international gendarme often in its own interests, upsets and aggravates people around the world, hence rebellion against the U.S. So the shots fired at U.S. planes flying in the other country's sky surprise you?

Also, where was the U.S. when "democracy" and "freedoms" needed protection in other (non oil rich places)? Where is the U.S. worrying about the world security when India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons? Seems like a very selective application of "freedom" and "democracy."

All U.S. citizens share the burden of allowing its dumb president and his loyal White House servants kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, destroying Iraq's infrastructure, screwing lives of the survivors, etc. The fact is that W and the crew are international criminals who shall be prosecuted by the international community. And the U.S. citizens shall be levied a recovery tax to compensate for what U.S. did to Iraq.


RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/22/2006 1:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "fact that the U.S. is acting as an international gendarme often in its own interests, upsets and aggravates people around the world,...So the shots fired at U.S. planes flying in the other country's sky surprise you? "

The shots I referred to were fired at US and British planes flying in support of a UN-approved mission. A mission authorized by unanimous vote of the UN Security Council, and the vast majority of the nations in the world. The US wasn't flying in its own interests, it was attempting to prevent the Hossein regime from butchering a few million more Kurds and Shias. I call that a worthy goal, even if you don't.

> "Where is the U.S. worrying about the world security when India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons?

Excellent question! In the case of India, the US was desperately trying to prevent the acquisition. France, however, supplied India with breeder reactors, and the USSR supplied them with heavy water. In the face of support by two members of the UN Security Council, our options were quite limited.

In the case of Pakistan, we fought even harder. In 1987, Pakistan acquired critical tritium technology from West Germany, and then, two years later, a complete reactor from China. The Bush administration then declares economic sanctions against Pakistan, and submits several UN resolutions for further action, all of which are vetoed by one or more Security Council members. In 1998, Pakistan conducts its first nuclear test.

I still remember what Pakistan PM Sharif responded, when called by Clinton in an attempt to stop to test. He said, "the world didn't punish India for developing nuclear weapons-- it won't punish us either".

> "W and the crew are international criminals who shall be prosecuted by the international community"

I think you'll find it impossible to name any "international law" which was broken by the invasion of Iraq.

> "Wow, let's get things straight"

Keep trying.


RE: hehehe
By maxusa on 7/23/2006 12:51:42 PM , Rating: 3
> The US wasn't flying in its own interests, it was attempting to prevent the Hossein regime from butchering a few million more Kurds and Shias. I call that a worthy goal, even if you don't.

This would have been a worthy goal is it was such; however, as they official White House message purported and the reality demonstrated, the goals were different. And please don't try to portray as if I am incapable of or don't support worthy goals. You can do better than that.

The point of my comment was to bring attention to your ridiculous suggestion that killing thousands of Iraquis is okay because the Saddam regime killed many more, and your attempt to link Iraq threat to the U.S. because of potshots at war planes over Iraq's territory.

You also speak about aborted or failed attempts of the U.S. to mitigate nuclear proliferation in India and Pakistan. How convenient! The U.S. decided to drop the ball in these directions, yet destroy Iraq amid the U.N. and the majority of the international community objections to the invasion. Very selective and certainly fitting the needs of the moment.

> I think you'll find it impossible to name any "international law" which was broken by the invasion of Iraq.

You're probably right here, just as you would be in the case of using nuclear weapons to wipe off several Japanese cities.


RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/23/2006 5:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "This would have been a worthy goal is it was such; however, as they official White House message purported and the reality demonstrated, the goals were different"

We're speaking of the Iraqi overflights, from 1991 to the invasion of Iraq itself. If you feel the "reality demonstrated" of these missions differed from the official mission goals, you'll have to back it up with a little more than just your own statement.

> "...that killing thousands of Iraquis is okay because the Saddam regime killed many more"

Longterm, the invasion of Iraq saved Iraqi lives. You can't run from this fact.

> "You also speak about aborted or failed attempts of the U.S. to mitigate nuclear proliferation in India and Pakistan. How convenient! The U.S. decided to drop the ball in these directions"

How did the US "decide" to drop the ball? Do you think Clinton made an active decision to allow Pakistan nuclear weapons? In the case of India which, at the time was supported by the Soviet Union...do you think the risk of WWIII and possible nuclear armaggedon was worth blocking India's test?

Answer please.

> "I think you'll find it impossible to name any "international law" which was broken by the invasion of Iraq."
You're probably right here...

So if I'm correct, and no law was broken...why are you calling Bush an "international criminal? You just like the flavor of the phrase?







RE: hehehe
By maxusa on 7/24/2006 9:04:06 AM , Rating: 2
Decisions revolve around the risk/reward ratio, don't they? Especially so in the foreign policy of the U.S. and its leadership. India and Pakistan are too big and too populated and there is no oil = high risk and low reward. Iraq, on the other hand is weakened by the sanctions, effectively disarmed over the years, not that big, and number 2 country with the world's oil reserves. It's an excellent and easy prize. So how can the U.S. leadership brainwash the citizens and, preferably, the international community into allowing the U.S. a license to kill?

This is a simplified but very likely reasoning of the current administration. Then followed the actions to conspire the war, deceive citizens and international community, abuse powers, then engage in killing of Iraq citizens, destruction of the country, ruining lives of survivors, removing foreign government, and, eventually, misappropriating of government funds, enriching their friends and family members (with handsome kickbacks), while covering it up with "war on terror," or "democracy," or "freedom" arguments. These crimes-domestic and international-surely warrant the responsible to answer. The reality, however, is that the 800-pound guerrilla does pretty much what it wants and laughs at everyone else.


RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2006 10:22:10 AM , Rating: 2
> "Decisions revolve around the risk/reward ratio, don't they?"

No, they revolve around the likelihood of actually being able to prevent proliferation, coupled with the danger the respective nation at risk of having nuclear weapons.

In the case of India, what would you have suggested we do? Invade? A nation of nearly one billion people, supported by the already nuclear-armed USSR? In the height of the Cold War...with the US still reeling from the Vietnam War? Only a child could believe the US had any practical response in this situation.

There's another factor that's even more nearsighted to ignore. The difference in the behavior of the respective governments. India has *never* invaded another nation, nor has it ever used WMD. Iraq, on the other hand, had been busily engaged in invading all its neighbors for profit, and its used WMD on its own citizens, as well as Iran.

You forget that the US wasn't the only nation worried about Iraq gaining WMD. Every single nation of the world (save for Libya, Cuba, and Yemen) considered Iraq enough of a threat to warrant the strictest sanctions ever applied by the UN, monitoring and destruction of all WMD assets and programs, and continual US-British overflights.

> "number 2 country with the world's oil reserves"

Oops, Iraq is #4 actually. Canada is #2...and its much closer, with a much smaller military, and a wide border for invasion. And yet we don't attack Canada.

So much for the "oil" theory.

> "This is a simplified but very likely reasoning of the current administration"

Only in the mind of a child. But I have a question for you. Did you support the US/NATO attack on Serbia, over the Kosovo situation? Yes or no.




RE: hehehe
By Mclendo06 on 7/21/2006 3:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
The goal of the terrorists is to create new extreme Islamic theocracies. They cannot anticipate being able to do this in the United States, but the United States is among the primary obstacles to them being able to set up such governments in more likely places. As long as we stand in their way, they are going to strike at us. In order to do that, they have to come over here. Chances are, they are going to communicate with their associates overseas after they arrive. The United States obviously has significant capabilities to monitor communications lines in and out of the country, and so the NSA uses those capabilities to figure out who in this nation is a terrorist based on who they speak with and what they say. Once they find someone who is a terrorist, they look at who they call internally with the phone call history. From this, they are able to track down entire terror networks within the country. Once they know who the people are, they go through more appropriate channels to collect evidence on them and prevent them from carrying out attacks. I think there are a few important distinctions to make. First off, the NSA is collecting intelligence, not evidence. An NSA recording from the wire-tapping program would never be allowed by any judge in a criminal trial case. The NSA is not prosecuting terrorists, it is identifying them. The less the terrorists know about how we find them, the easier it is going to be for us to figure out who they are. The fewer people who know about the programs we use to find terrorists, the less likely it is the terrorists will learn more about how to evade detection. I'm not saying that people from the OPR are going to find terrorists and tell them how we go about finding them; a more likely scenario is for someone at the OPR to leak details to the press, who then writes a juicy story about this controversial issue which includes details which causes the program to become less effective. My non-lawyer mind doesn't see how listening to my telephone conversations to determine if I am likely a terrorist constitutes unreasonable search and seizure. First off, knowing that there are plenty of people in the world whose sole purpose in life is to kill Americans makes a program like this seem prudent, much less reasonable. Secondly, I am fairly confident that if I am foolish enough to use a phone conversation to execute some sort of crime and get arrested for it, the prosecution isn't going to be presenting "Exhibit A - NSA phone tap recording 184730957" at my trial.


RE: hehehe
By 05SilverGT on 7/21/2006 3:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed


RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 3:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The goal of the terrorists is to create new extreme Islamic theocracies. [etc., etc]

Agree, with the caveat that the Bush Adminstration and NSA do this work lawfully .

I don't think anyone here has argued against the validity of the work or of the obectives, just the fact that (it appears) that laws may have been broken and/or Judicial oversight bypassed.


RE: hehehe
By MrDiSante on 7/21/2006 1:31:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Our government kills for profit, and ignores the consequences. When those consequences turn into terrorist acts against our citizens, they lie to us and act like they dont know why, and send our youth off to die for thier profits.

Buddy, you've been listening to waaaaay too much liberal propaganda. The reason they hate us is that we're rich and powerful and they're dirt poor. It's a simple thing called envy and a messed up inbred culture, been around for thousands of years and it's not going away. Look at places where Americans are actually turning a huge profit on local labour/goods/whatnot: Asia and Africa, yet none of them are running around flying planes into American buildings or anything of the sort. And guess what, they won't leave you alone just because you don't bother them as the case with Israel withdrawing from most of its territories showed too clearly.


RE: hehehe
By retrospooty on 7/21/2006 1:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
You have a good point. We are dealing with some stone age mentality for sure, I also said "Not to say violence is justifiable under any circumstances". I do not at all agree with what these extremists are doing, I am just pointing out that our beleved government lies to us on a daily basis, and it is all for profit (not for the actual US government, but the the corporate culture that controls it, specifically the oil companies).

My point is this... Althought he terrorist are 100% wrong, and screwed up in many many ways, I do NOT trust the US goverment to be listening in to phone calls. They are NOT honest, and do NOT have the best interest of US citizens on thier agenda, at all.



RE: hehehe
By Ringold on 7/21/2006 4:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
They hate us for our money? You're listening to the simple-minded ignorant right-wing propaganda. Sure, it sounds good and upon superficial analysis apparently might make sense. And of course the masses leave it at that and, like you, take it as truth.

The Iranian public hates us and burns their flag for our money. Okay, you'd assume that to be logical. Except that on 9-12-01, a million people filled the streets of Tehran, many in tears, mourning the loss of an American icon. Millions filled the streets of cities across the world, the same streets where now the ashes of burnt American flags now lay. Do you, in your ignorance, think our GDP has really increases much since 2001? yeah. Right. Good anaylsis.

On the other hand, these terrorist groups do seem to have the ultimate goal of establish a global caliphate and dont mind sending minions off to die and dont mind the process taking generations to accomplish. As TomZ and others said, however, it also doesn't mean that we should allow a single one of our values or rights to compromised. When we do, as we've done over the past few years, morally we are only marginally better than our enemies, falling down a slippery slope of our own.


RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2006 4:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
> "Our government kills for profit, and ignores the consequences"

I wish you chaps would make up your mind. First you claim the war in Iraq is "too expensive", then you claim we're making a profit from it. Which one is it?

And, by the way, if you think we're "ignoring the consequence" in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else...you haven't been reading the news. We're still there, helping to support the governments, and rebuild the country.


RE: hehehe
By retrospooty on 7/22/2006 9:53:20 AM , Rating: 2
I have to reply to this one... Listen, you just dont seem to get how this country works so I will spell it out clearly for you...

1. Yes, the war is extremely expensive and a HUGE drain to taxpayers. That money is being spent by our government to pay for defense and rebuilding.

2. The oil companies and corp. fatcats like Haliburton are make billions off this venture. They are winning bids to rebuild destroyed bridges, the Iraqi company bids $500,000 and Haliburton bids $50 million, and Haliburton wins the contract. Do you see whats happening? Most of the war budget is going to make Halibuton and others like it rich beyond belief, while our taxes are paying for it under the disguise of patriotism. Boold for money... Not cool.

Dumbass.


RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/22/2006 12:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
> "Dumbass. "

I commend you on your excellent debating tactics, and the strength of your logical arguments.

> "They are winning bids to rebuild destroyed bridges, the Iraqi company bids $500,000 and Haliburton bids $50 million"

Ah, you have a reference for Haliburton (or any other US company) winning a contract with a bid 100 times higher than the low bidder?

I didn't think so.


RE: hehehe
By retrospooty on 7/23/2006 12:22:49 AM , Rating: 2
Your eyes and mind are both sealed shut. Lets jsut end it here.


RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/23/2006 10:53:42 AM , Rating: 2
> "Lets jsut end it here. "

You make wild accusations and farfetched conspiracy theories, then when someone asks you to back them up, you say this?

A very illuminating response.


RE: hehehe
By retrospooty on 7/23/2006 1:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
I really hate myself for doing this, because I know it wont change your mind and you will come up with some way to negate the facts but here we go for a start... Its just the tip of the iceberg, and it should be understood that these people have very high powered lawyers and friends in the highest offices, so actual convictions are impossible with the president blocking investigations... Welcome to reality.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.c...

http://www.williambowles.info/halliburton/hal_over...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3963967.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6363896/

http://dissent.blogspot.com/2005/06/robbing-piggy-...


RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/23/2006 5:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
> "you will come up with some way to negate the facts "

lol, your own links demonstrate that, far from "blocking" any investigation, the FBI investigated. You might want to check up on the results of that investigation, by the way.

The NBC and BBC stories date from the week before Bush'd reelection. A convenient time...but unfortunately there is plenty of innuendo here, but no "facts" whatsoever in them. No evidence of wrongdoing by *anyone*, much less Bush or Cheney.

The "star witness from all this is Miss Bunny Greenhouse, a civilian worker who was demoted for poor job performance, a fact her own coworkers bear out (this is repeated in YOUR stories no less). And what does Bunny have to say? That she felt a 1-year contract for Haliburton was justified...but a 5-year contract was awarded.

Wow. Stop the presses.





RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 1:19:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sure the German's would have loved to know all our secret programs during WW2.

I also wanted to respond to this. You simply cannot put the "war on terror" and WW2 into the same category. Millions of people died in WW2 with some countries set on world domination. The "war on terror" is not exactly the same thing. It may have some similar qualities, but the scale of the threat is not the same.

The only sense that the "war on terror" is a war is that the U.S. created wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, maybe justified, maybe not.


RE: hehehe
By 05SilverGT on 7/21/2006 1:30:37 PM , Rating: 1
Sure it is. WW2 was a nation state Germany looking for world domination. Now it’s terrorists groups looking for world domination that our supported by nation states. Just makes it harder to put all the blame on one country. I guess we’d all like to take a trip back to third world living and live by Islamic law. No thank you, I’m happy with the melting pot we call the USA. Sure we have our problems but nothing like these guys. Last time I checked the KKK doesn’t go shooting missiles into black neighborhoods.


RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 1:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now it’s terrorists groups looking for world domination that our supported by nation states.

No, terrorist groups are not looking for world domination. Nor do they have anywhere near the military potential for that even if it was their goal. Even well-organized, well-funded groups like Hezbollah have very focused, local goals. Even Al-Qaeda's goals are simply to reduce the West's influence into Islamic affairs. Not hardly world domination, and not hardly a threat that should seriously keep us up at night. We should worry more about traffic accidents than Al-Qaeda.


RE: hehehe
By 05SilverGT on 7/21/2006 1:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
Nice that you bought into their propaganda because that’s exactly what they want you to believe. Trust me these people want nothing better more then to destroy our very way life in time. (I’m assuming you’re from a western country) Right now it’s regional but if there was ever to be a formation of a Fascist Islamic Super Power, God help us. That is exactly what we are trying to stop looking at the big picture. Remember always look big picture with these kinds of things. Israel first, then Europe, then the U.S.A. Hopefully the Chinese and Russians catch on quick because they’ll meet the same fate at the hands of radical Islam.


RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 1:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't buy into their propaganda, nor do I agree with their goals and objectives. But a realistic assessment of the threat does not include the possibility of world domination, or even any real threat to our way of life, despite what the Bush Adminstration would tell us.


RE: hehehe
By 05SilverGT on 7/21/2006 2:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
Basically what these people want is a barbaric Islamic state. If you looking into Islam even a little you'll know these people take it to the extreme. They'd be more then happy to kill you if you’re not Islamic. Last time I checked I'm not a follower of Islam nor do I ever want to be. Just take a minute and imagine these guys as the KKK. Would you want them to take control of a region of the world and us it so spread their power of hate globally. While I am a Catholic I'm starting to believe religion was developed just to create more separation between people.


RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 2:26:03 PM , Rating: 3
Islamic extremists don't hate us for who we are; they hate us for what we do. Again, this is the opposite of what the Bush Administration tells us ("These people hate us because we love freedom" or something like that), because we are supposed to believe that we are in no way responsible for our actions or their reactions.

To clarify, I'm not saying we shouldn't be involved, e.g., in the Middle East, but what I am saying that our actions do have consequences. And again, I'm not condoning the activities of terrorists; I'm just saying that the hatred that the extremists have for us is not entirely unjustified.

Finally, most Islamic people do not share these views, it is just the extremist minority.


RE: hehehe
By ttowntom3 on 7/21/2006 3:42:52 PM , Rating: 1
> "this is the opposite of what the Bush Administration tells us ("These people hate us because we love freedom" or something like that), "

To be fair-- pretty much what the Clinton Administration told us, when they ordered Iraq bombed in 1993.


RE: hehehe
By Pirks on 7/21/06, Rating: -1
RE: hehehe
By rushfan2006 on 7/21/2006 2:45:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure it is. WW2 was a nation state Germany looking for world domination.


You want to know the similarity with WW2 and the War on Terror, there are two: 1) people got shot and died and 2) the word "WAR" is in both of them. Similarities end there.

Comparing the two is a huge stretch. And its ludicrous to even consider the fact that someone seriously thinks the two are comparable.



RE: hehehe
By 05SilverGT on 7/21/2006 3:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Comparing the two is a huge stretch. And its ludicrous to even consider the fact that someone seriously thinks the two are comparable.


It's ludicrous to not think this is comparable. The biggest problem is the U.S. hasn't officially gone out and made it a war. We "the west" have an enemy that like the Nazi's have a vision for the world. This vision just happens to be pretty narrow and based off twisted religous beliefs. It was been stated many times that they do not like the way we live and wish to end it. I'm not interested in living under a Taliban style of rule. We wouldn't all be talking about this on the internet that's for sure. Just in person while our wives were all wrapped up in black. No thanks! I'll take my freedom, technology, and quality of life over that everyday!


RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 3:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It was been stated many times that they do not like the way we live and wish to end it.

Incidentally, who did you hear that from? It wasn't President Bush, was it? Do you think he might have any ulterior motives, you know, being a politician and all?


RE: hehehe
By 05SilverGT on 7/21/2006 3:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well I haven't had a chance to talk to UBL directly so I don't have the other side of the story from the horses mouth. I do listen to Bush but don't agree with everything. Most of my information comes from various media sources. I don't make decisions on what just one person says. How about you? Where do you get your info? How do you know all these terrorist groups just want to keep it local? Do you really believe Iran want's nuke tech for power plants? If you do I have this 88 Buick I can sell you for $75,000.


RE: hehehe
By rushfan2006 on 7/21/2006 3:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's ludicrous to not think this is comparable. The biggest problem is the U.S. hasn't officially gone out and made it a war. We "the west" have an enemy that like the Nazi's have a vision for the world. This vision just happens to be pretty narrow and based off twisted religous beliefs. It was been stated many times that they do not like the way we live and wish to end it. I'm not interested in living under a Taliban style of rule. We wouldn't all be talking about this on the internet that's for sure. Just in person while our wives were all wrapped up in black. No thanks! I'll take my freedom, technology, and quality of life over that everyday!


No its not comparable. With the most respectful way I can say this, I don't think you understand why we have said its not comparable to WWII. Research what led to WWII, then examine the reasonings for the "War on Terror" -- if you still then see how they are similar....then either you can't read, you are reading very biased sources or I don't know what.

And for starters the Taliban are not conquesting for the world, that's just the very start of why the two events aren't the same.

However, I don't have the time or the inclination (as I would rather do other things with said time) to explain in full detail the reasons why they aren't comparable.

Its even funny when you think about it -- you just say "Well the taliban wants to impose their way on the world"....if that's your standard, you can say nearly any war is like WWII..LOL....of course....almost every war is fought because one side or the other wants to conquer more territory and impose their views, culture and way of life on others....LOL..



RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2006 4:37:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "And for starters the Taliban are not conquesting for the world, that's just the very start of why the two events aren't the same."

Nazi Germany desired Lebensraum, and "Großdeutschland", a greater German state, free from ethic pollution. That was their rhetoric motivating Germany to begin WW2.

Muslim Fundamentalistics want a greater Islamic State, free from religious pollution. The terms are slightly different, but the rhetoric is more similar than you think.


RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 4:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The terms are slightly different, but the rhetoric is more similar than you think.

Agreed, but do you take the view that the War on Terror is similar to World War II; or that the War on Terror is effectively World War III?


RE: hehehe
By Pirks on 7/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 6:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ionly saw two ways - 1) stay back and do nothing or 2) prevent bad things from happening by acting early. Now, we're all lsitening - tell us your alternative way number three.

3) Respond in situ with moderation. A perfect example of this was the first Gulf war after Iraq invaded Kuwait. We didn't invade Iraq prior, to prevent an invasion. Instead, we dealt with it as it happened. We freed Kuwait and waged an air war, destroying Iraq's military capacity, and thus their ability to repeat their Kuwait invasion. IMO, this was very effective, and met all the same objectives you outlined without being overly proactive or argressive.

There are problems with the super proactive strategy that you advocate. First and foremost is the cost in terms of human lives and dollars, and the possibility that we will not accurately understand a situation properly prior to executing such a war (i.e., we reach the wrong conclusion, as may have happened in Iraq).

The next problem I see is that, once we remove the government, then we inherent total responsibility for all the services that the government previously provided. We also gain responsibility for rebuilding and creating a new government. These are not activities that the U.S. is particularly good at.


RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2006 6:19:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "A perfect example of this was the first Gulf war after Iraq invaded Kuwait. We didn't invade Iraq prior, to prevent an invasion...There are problems with the super proactive strategy that you advocate. First and foremost is the cost in terms of human lives and dollars...

I think any military analyst would agree that, had we fortifiled Kuwait prior to the invasion, the cost in lives and dollars would have been considerably lower, not higher.

quote:
and the possibility that we will not accurately understand a situation properly prior to executing such a war (i.e., we reach the wrong conclusion, as may have happened in Iraq)...

A very valid point. Its hard to use your crystal ball to act appropriately.



RE: hehehe
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 6:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think any military analyst would agree that, had we fortifiled Kuwait prior to the invasion, the cost in lives and dollars would have been considerably lower, not higher.

Yes, an even better idea! Much, much better than removing a government.


RE: hehehe
By Pirks on 7/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: hehehe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2006 6:00:14 PM , Rating: 3
> "Agreed, but do you take the view that the War on Terror is similar to World War II; or that the War on Terror is effectively World War III? "

Personally, I think the rhetoric on both sides of the fence are overstated. You can't fight a war on terrorism. You can only fight specific terrorists.

However, I do see the potential for a future large-scale war, between the US, its allies, and a diverse coalition of Islamic nations. If that eventually ever occurs, it will be motivated, not by innate hatred of our "richness" or our "freedom", but primarily by our support of Israel's more questionable acts.


RE: hehehe
By Suomynona on 7/23/2006 3:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
Even the most fundamentalist of the extermists only wants isolationism and freedom from the meddling of foreign governments in their internal affairs. That is entirely different from what the Europeans you cite desired.


RE: hehehe
By Ardan on 7/21/2006 1:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, so glad I didn't vote for him in either of the elections :). Hate that man and his policies so much!

Yeah I thought that was funny too...protecting the secrecy of a program we all have heard about now...hahaha. I got a good laugh out of the whole 'stem cell research' and 'murder' connection he manages to put forth, too, though I suppose the display that a Kansas senator used is more amusing. Did anyone see the clips of it on the daily show too? LOL. I think his name was Sam Brownback or something. I also enjoyed how he wanted to protect the 'sanctity' of marriage. I thought that was funny because come on, how many people get divorced again? Sounds like a joke to most people :P. Hope nobody tries to debate this because they won't get one. Just pointing out what I've found funny is all. To anyone that gets angry at this, I give them this response: lighten up already! :D

Hope you all have a great weekend.


Separation of Powers
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 12:43:23 PM , Rating: 5
A very clear example of why the principle of Separation of Powers is important. It is ridiculous that the Bush Administration can call off an investigation into the legality of its actions. We need action from Congress or in the Courts.




RE: Separation of Powers
By creathir on 7/21/2006 12:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
Well, this is why the AG office resides under the executive branch. OTHERWISE, the congress would have a check that would superseed the executive branch, making the balance of power out of wack. I could see it now...
A democract/republic congress taking legal action over law it creates against the opposing party's president. Yeah... thats a good idea... no thanks.

- Creathir


RE: Separation of Powers
By edogwv on 7/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: Separation of Powers
By retrospooty on 7/21/2006 1:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
What if they decide to listen to you? We have clear laws of privacy in this counrty that are there for a reason... Freedom is that reason. Bush is breaking those laws and blocking investigations into thge legality of his own actions.

This is not the USA I grew up in, this is BS.


RE: Separation of Powers
By edogwv on 7/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: Separation of Powers
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 2:35:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If a bomb blows up on a Subway train and kills someone you know or love, are you going to be happy that you maintained your privacy ?

Seems like a logical argument, but it ignores the relative risk. What if the risk of dying in such a situation is less than 1 in 10 million? Are you still worried about it? And in that case, how much of your privacy rights are you willing to spend, and how much do you think that will further decrease the risk?


RE: Separation of Powers
By cwalk on 7/21/2006 4:12:26 PM , Rating: 5
New Hampshire says it best: "Live Free or Die"


RE: Separation of Powers
By tfranzese on 7/21/2006 2:50:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


RE: Separation of Powers
By retrospooty on 7/21/2006 3:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
welll said... Who said it?


RE: Separation of Powers
By elmer92413 on 7/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: Separation of Powers
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2006 4:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "Benjamin Franklin said that"

Often incorrectly attributed to him...but the origin is actually unknown.


RE: Separation of Powers
By tfranzese on 7/21/2006 5:05:29 PM , Rating: 3
Which is why I didn't cite it ;)