Bush spies on Americans

Remove all ads!

I think this aspect of the story is quite interesting. There's a slight chance that George II may be headed for some legal problems with this one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

 

So is this illegal or isn't it? Now I'm confused.

 

Bush would have you believe is legal. His stance is, Congress voting him the war in Afghanistan gives him the right to do whatever he wants.

In related news, look at what FBI increasing spying powers are used for FBI Papers Show Terror Inquiries Into PETA; Other Groups Tracked Quotes from the story (last quote is especially interesting)

It is not only PETA, too

Harbourboy:

There is an oft-cited quote which starts like this: " First they came for the communists, but I did not speak out because I was no communist ..."

 

Could you clarify on this a bit? It seems mighty easy to say something like this, but awfully hard to backup.

 

On a side note, of course I think morons like those of PETA should observed. Usually crazy twits are not dangerous people, only crazy twits. Those of PETA are dangerous crazy twits.

 

Well, I'd say only the active members of PETA are dangerous crazy twits; the ones who cheer from the sidelines (including some celebrities) are just regular crazy twits.

 

Well, one of the things that makes us civilized humans is that if we know someone else's rights are being infringed upon, we take a stand to protect them. That's the ostensible reason America went into WW2 -- to help the people in Eastern Europe who were being abused.

I'm all for the government being given the ability to pretect society as a whole, but watchdogs must be in place to "watch the watchers", as it were.

As for democracies, well, the incredibly low voter turnout in some countries means that while a majority of those who voted are the ones who selected the government, it is very rarely a majority of the population. But for that, the people who fail to vote are the ones responsible for their own disenfranchisement.

 

Oh yes, Al Qaeda and Osoma bin Laden be damned. The most obvious form of terrorists that pose the greatest threat to Western civilization is without doubt the tree-huggers and bunny-huggers. Brilliant deduction.

Note: I'm not making fun of you khaavern, I just find the quote ridiculous.

 

Aldeth, I would argue that the greatest threat to any society is the rot that comes from within. The tree huggers may seem harmelss, but when they flout the law or engage in destructive activities like destroying property, they are just as much of a threat as Osama and the rest of the outside psychos.

There's a good argument, in fact, that the Western world should leave the middle east and clean up the messes in its own back yard. I personally don't buy this 100%, but I do see the merit in it.

 

Well, correct me if I am mistaken, but the obvious implication of this quote is: if the tree-huggers are the greatest (terrorist) threat to society, then all the powers the government got after 9/11 in name of fighthing terrorism are hardly justified.

After all, tree huggers and animal activists have been around for quite some time; and the society didn't exacly suffer greatly.

 

I think you all are getting the "tree hugger" thing way wrong. Probably the most dangerous domestic terroist threat that the US faces come from the nuts in the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and their cousins the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). These ecoterroists have caused considerable property damage and have routinely endangered the lives of fire fighters and first responders. They both have connections to the more up-and-up groups like PETA.

These are people who need to be watched and if caught, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Here's an article to help slay the cutesy tree hugger image.

And this article goes into a bit more depth as to the threat these terrorists pose.

@Art

What I'm saying by this is that there exists under the 1978 law the provisions to be able to spy and wiretap any citizen. The investigators simply take enough evidence to a judge and obtain a writ authorizing whatever measures they seek...very similar to getting a search warrant but more time consuming and complicated. Unfortunately, by the time authorization could be gotten to listen in on any phone call made on a requested number, the suspect is already on their third or fourth phone number.

To get around this the Bush Administration used a loophole in the law allowing them to tap in on international calls since it wouldn't be considered unauthorized domestic spying. Bully for them.

 

Oh, come on. What these guys do is illegal, but calling them a threat to the society is going way overboard. Vandalism, is more like it. From the CNN article linked above: no deaths have resulted from their activities, and damage is estimated to ~ 100 million dollars -- in the past decade .

(as an aside: $210 million have been spent on the environmental cleanup of a single Superfund mining site - in Colorado -Summitville. So spare me the outcry about the cost of these 'tree-huggers' to society)

 

Agreed. It's more like criminal mischief and vandalism than terrorism. Besides, we're spending nearly $1 billion per week in Iraq. I doubt these other groups have cost the US $1 billion in their entire history of existence.

 

Can you name another domestic group that has done more damage?

The type of vandalism being done will eventually cause loss of life. Regardless, it's still a crime that we all pay the price of. I'm only trying to say that these animal rights activists who are supposedly under surveillance aren't the tree-huggers singing "Kum-ba-yah" outside a cosmetics factory. If the damages have been held to 100 million in the last decade, maybe its because they've been being watched .

From the ever-authoritative Wikipedia on ELF...

 

I don't need a whole group - I can give you a single person - Timothy McVeigh

 

Various corporations come to mind...

Regardless, this is not the issue under discussion here. I brought this up because I think is amazing that such groups are considered the #1 terrorist threat in US. If so, I repeat my previous question: what's the point of the Patriot Act? After all, the US govt. could easily deal with these groups using laws existing before 9/11.

 

You got me on the Timothy McVeigh

I guess we are getting a little

 

I think those of you who don't have a problem with the government being able to spy on anybody without any kind of court order or supervision need to rent an old movie called "Enemy of the state". It was made to spotlight this very issue three years before 9/11. It shows how secret government spying can be easily abused.

 

You use the word suspect as though it means, "guilty." You can't say they don't have to use the courts because the suspect *could* be doing something wrong right at that critical second it takes to get official authorization. That logic allows the government to get away with *anything.*

Its obvious some people need to be monitored, but its also important that the government itself is monitored. With one branch able to work completely autonomously of the others, there is no protection of the people from the government. Scary stuff.

 

im not so convinced bush was