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