Bush Lets Government Spy on Callers Without Warrants

Starbuck · **Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:06 pm**

Its invasion of privacy.

LightningBoy · **Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:10 pm**

Would you quote to me where, in the constitution, there exists the word "privacy"?

It's not in there.

Plus, we're talking arond 35 wire taps. 35 out of... Roughly 350,000,000 (?) people in America.
One in ten million shot that you were wire tapped. I doubt you, or anyone you know, or anyone they know, was ever wire-tapped. Again, it's not like this strategy was abused; and it was done in the immediate days following 9/11 (that, alone, should get the pres a pass.)

And again, the federal judge in charge of ruliling on internal spywork already called this "legal", so it's no story.

Republican_Man · **Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:46 pm**

Sure, sure, good points.
And you want to put PRIVACY over someone having a conversation with Osama bin Laden? You want national security to wait three months when in that time we could be attacked? Sad.

oberon · Lieutenant, Junior Grade Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 106

Republican_Man · **Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:06 pm**

Actually, what the terrorists want is unfeddered communication between fellow terrorists in the United States. They want to be able to contact their associates in the US, and by preventing this from continuing we are playing into their hands. And we are far off from a police state

Please read my arguments, oberon, which you clearly have not done. This has been done in the past. It is nothing new.
Plus. it takes 2 to 3 MONTHS to get a warrant from the specific international court that they need to get a warrent from. By then, we could have Chicago eliminated from the face of the earth. That may sound while to you, but it is a much more real possibility than you will admit. I'd rather have someone tapping my calls than that happening.

Here's the answer to your question, though: It's alright to violate privacy because NATIONAL SECURITY is at stake--something that you would much rather ignore than admit. It deals with international and foreign defense, not simply at-home defense. They're only monitoring those highly suspected to be terrorists, and their primary source is from the international call, usually, not the person in the US.
Again, all a terrorist would need to do now, if this isn't allowed to continue, is get an American cell phone with an American area code, a thousand minutes, and all that, give it to a terrorist in another country (or use it themselves), and communicate without being stopped--plot another attack. This, plus the Patriot Act, has worked in stopping several planned attacks by Al Quada. I think we need to keep it in place, so that we can prevent a terrorist attack from happening.
Seriously, I'd rather not wait three months for a warrent than have Chicago gone before then; wouldn't you? Of course not.

oberon · Lieutenant, Junior Grade Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 106

Republican_Man · **Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:33 pm**

The NSA has its own complete network

And it may have been an exageration, but you should get the point. I meant a devastating attack. However, it is far more likely than you will admit that the terrorists could get a hold of a nuclear weapon and use it on an American city.
You clearly either ignored my actual argument or just didn't want to respond. Please give a complete rebuttal to my overall argument.

EDIT: Keep in mind that this program is employed only to intercept the international communications of people inside the US, and those people have been determined to have a "clear link" to Al Quada and other similar terrorist organizations. So, yeah. The link is clear, and the only communications intercepted are international.

And isn't it interesting, the timing of the release of this article? The day after the successful Iraqi elections, when Bush was starting to look better in the eyes of the American people? More left-wing media bias? I think so.

oberon · Lieutenant, Junior Grade Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 106

Republican_Man · **Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:44 pm**

It's called NATIONAL SECURITY. Something you seem to not understand, clearly, because you underestimate the terrorists. You want us to do nothing to stop them, don't you, because they're not a threat. Yeah, not a threat, alright. Oh, the Patriot Act is more of a threat than the terrorists. Yeah, that's right. Suuuurrrre. Maybe you forget 9/11, but I don't.
And I don't literally mean Chicago being destroyed with a nuclear weapon. I mean a devastating attack like 9/11 or bigger. It could happen, yet you completely shut aside the possibility, for whatever reason. And for some odd reason you just shut aside my point with the Chicago statement. Pass it off as paranoia, thinking that the terrorists pose a grave threat, if you want, but that's far from what it is. Do you understand my point there, with regards to the Chicago point I made before?
And there is a way for terrorists to get nuclear weapons. That was part of the reason we went to Iraq, and are working to stop Iran's programs--so that the terrorists didn't/won't get their hands on WMDs.
The situation is more grave than you will admit. I don't believe that they have a nuclear weapon--although I don't shut out the possiblity--or that they can get it as easily as some think, but you miss the point. The point is that we need to have these measures in place to defend against another terrorist attack. Remember 9/11? If we had, say, the Patriot Act, it would have been preventable, especially after what Able Danger showed us.

Whatever is bolded below is a QUESTION FOR YOU. DO NOT DODGE THEM. Answer them FLAT OUT, oberon.

1. Do you remember 9/11?
2. How many people died on 9/11--how many INNOCENTS?
3. Do you REALLY want another attack to happen?
4. How big of a threat would you say the terrorists pose? I mean, they managed to carry out 9/11. Seems like they pose a big threat to me, especially considering how large their network is. AND they managed to bomb the Madrid train system and London subway networks. I'd think they're QUITE capable of deadly attacks.
5. If Osama bin Laden gave a call to the US to talk to one of his operatives about an attack, do we really have to wait three months for a warrent--do we REALLY have to hang up and go to the special court, waiting three months in which time the attack could happen?

With regards to Victoria Toensing, I'm going to quote her from Hannity and Colmes the other night:
"I bet you most of them don't even know how this scenerio could occur. I happen to, because I was chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I used to have to look into these things. Look, picture this: What if Osama bin Laden is making a phone call to the United States. Do people really think that the government should then say 'I my goodness, we're now monitoring a US citizen, and we should hang uP? That's what this is all about."
I'm gonna quote Sean Hannity's responding question to her:
"...It seems to me that the left wants it both ways. They want to be able to blaim Bush anytime anything happens, but on the other hand they're not allowing him to take what seem to be clearly obvious, common-sensical-type steps to insure that we monitor these people that we know are out there because we already know what their intentions are. There's judicial oversight. We know that Jay Rockefeller was aware of this. We know that the Foreign Intelligence Security Act Court was aware of this. What else is the President to do?"
Her response:
"In the past the FBI and the CIA--well, mostly the FBI--were supposed to only investigate crimes that had taken place. The laws and the court opinions that were written to protect our rights when the government is investigating a crime that has taken place don't work for what we've now told the government we want it to do, and that is to preven the next attack. We have to find new ways to do it--and balance our individual rights at the same time, but we can't rely on the old laws."
That is entirely true. There's no evidence that any law was broken, at the same time.
A question for YOU that Hannity rightfully asked the liberal guest on his and liberal Allan Colmes's show:
We're in a post 9/11 world, have the enemies of America plotting, planning, and scheming the next attack, so 6. explain to me where there's any type of law broken here and 7. tell us what measures you would support the government taking against terrorism (clearly you have to be one of those people who is against the random bag checks in the NY City Subway system, for isntance, are you not?).
That Osama question I pose to you YET AGAIN in another form, for question 7, asking Toensing's question to liberal co-host Allan Colmes to you.
8. "Osama bin Laden: we're monitoring all his calls--wouldn't that be wonderful?--and he calls somebody in the United States. Do you want us to hang up?"
I quote her again, when Alan pressed her a point about going to an international court or something and Victoria replied,
"I understand [how the process works]. It takes two to three months to get a foreign intelligence survailence act wiretap--I've had to review them. They are three inches thick, most of the time, and if you just got a phone call right now--you're listening to Osama bin Laden--and he's calling the United States, there's no way you can get it."
I hope you don't ignore that, like you've been ignoring the bulk of my arguments here.

One more time, in a YES OR NO answer. THEN explain it. 9. If Osama calls, do you think, by law, that we should have to hang up? YES or NO. YES or NO FIRST, THEN explain.

Now, please answer the questions FLAT OUT. No dodging them. Answer them, because I'm going to continue to ask the questions that you don't answer.

Theresa · **Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:56 pm**

Guys, all he's doing is legalizing what the government's been doing for years... Don't any of you watch documentaries? Sheesh,

Republican_Man · **Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:10 pm**

IntrepidIsMe · **Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:07 pm**

I wouldn't say that the NY Times is blowing this out of proportion. Afterall, apparently House members are upset and surprised by the news, as well... and those are members from both parties.

webtaz99 · **Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:41 am**

First off, if you still believe in "privacy" in a world where they can see through walls and pick up conversations in other rooms from bouncing a laser beam off a window from a mile away, wake up.

Second, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution to be "violated".

Third, using a telephone is a privilege, not a "right". That's why it costs money.

oberon · Lieutenant, Junior Grade Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 106

Republican_Man · **Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:29 pm**

LightningBoy · **Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:36 pm**

You're not talking regular citizens here; these are people with confirmed links to Al-Qaeda, and as far as i'm concerned, such associations DESERVE a loss of rights.

Regular citizens aren't losing rights. This is common sence; but then again, President Bush could pull a puppy out of the way of a semi-truck, and your liberals would probably criticize him for jerking the leash too hard.

The intolerance and closed mindedness of most of the left is ridiculous.

Republican_Man · **Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:53 pm**

You know, LB, you should answer my questions. If oberon won't, maybe you will--and you'll answer them with logic

Seriously, LB. I mean, if Osama bin Laden was placing a call to the US, and we were monitoring his calls (wouldn't that be nice?), and he called a guy in the US, would you want us to hang up? I don't think so. And I'd rather have that intruison than another attack. And so would the majority of Americans. Seriously. A little bit of intruison, when used properly, is acceptable.
Answer my questions, oberon. I plead to you to do so.

oberon · Lieutenant, Junior Grade Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 106

Republican_Man · **Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:50 pm**

Oberon, answer my questions. LB, he really needs to answer my questions. Until then, let's just ignore him here, in this topic. If he can't answer 9 simple questions then he's not worth the effort.

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

Enough. All of you.

LightningBoy · **Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:59 pm**

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

Republican_Man · **Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:02 pm**

7 Questions oberon. Answer them.

Questions:
1. Do you remember 9/11?
2. How many people died on 9/11--how many INNOCENTS?
3. Do you REALLY want another attack to happen?
4. How big of a threat would you say the terrorists pose?
5. If Osama bin Laden gave a call to the US to talk to one of his operatives about an attack, do we really have to wait three months for a warrent--do we REALLY have to hang up and go to the special court, waiting three months in which time the attack could happen? (rephrase) "Osama bin Laden: we're monitoring all his calls--wouldn't that be wonderful?--and he calls somebody in the United States. Do you want us to hang up?" YES OR NO. THEN explain.
6. Explain to me where there's any type of law broken here.
7. Tell us what measures you would support the government taking against terrorism

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

Republican_Man · **Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:11 pm**

He keeps dodging them. I just think that they are VERY important questions to answer, considering how critical he is of the administration here, and yet is offering no other ideas. I highly suggest that he answer them, but I'll stop asking them. He can read. I'm done. I'll just hope that he responds. If not, I'll give a rebuttal to whatever he argues. Alright, sorry. I'm done.

I think that the way we're going now is a good way. The Bush doctrine is a good one. I'm glad we have him in office and his policies in place. I mean, only Reagan could be better.
I support the policy of listening in to convos of people with KNOWN TERRORIST CONNECTIONS without a warrent, because of imminence. I also support policies like that Patriot Act, and the War in Iraq.
The terrorists pose a particularly grievous threat, and I think we need to take the necessary steps against them, to prevent another terrorist attack.