it's now wrong to identify an unconstitutional act?

[RyMickey]

Edited to add;, I don't think that anyone on Sept. 12, thought that we wouldn't get hit again. Thus far we haven't. I don't think that it was by accident, do you?

From revealing secret facilities/jails in Poland (and thereby possibly bringing harm to a country that was helping us) to monitoring suspected terrorists, I'm fed up with our country...Fed up with the way that some people living here feel that we shouldn't do all we can in order to protect ourselves. If that means monitoring a few (in the grand scheme of things) people who are suspected by the government of plotting terrorist activities, so be it.

We, as a country, need to protect ourselves. I honestly feel the President is doing that. This is a new age and a new era and there are going to be times when we're going to have to "bend the rules" in order to protect ourselves. Since when did "self-defense" become a bad thing? I realize this won't be a popular opinion (and I'm not sure why the heck it isn't), but we need to protect ourselves and worry about our well-being.

And before you make snippy remarks like "baa baa" (to which I could just as easily say to you for following the other side of the aisle), I'm not a big fan of Pres Bush. He's done many things that I haven't liked, but if "secretly" monitoring potential terrorists is going to help us, I'm all for it.

And now I'll let DawnCT1 go back to debating because she's much better at it than me.

 

[Free4Life11]

Someone needs to spy on me. Seriously my life is too boring. I need some excitement...

I recommend everyone say "I have a bomb and going to blow something up tommorow" every few months when you are talking to a friend on the phone. Great way to find out if they are spying on you

 

[Bayshore Bandit]

"King" George does as "King" George wants to.

From what I understand, there is a legal way to do this, why does
this President feel the need to be above the law??

 

[Alice's Mom]

Flame away, but OK. Here's a situation you may remember..
The hijakers of 9/11. If the intelligence could/would have had wire taps on their phones legally or illegally and the act was stopped, would you deem it OK for this action?

no flames, but a reminder that there was a report from an FBI agent in Arizona alerting to a potential problem, he did this with investigation, not illegal wire taps.

 

[M:SteveO]

First of all, if you're not making international phone calls to terror-related people, you've got nothing to worry about. The executive order deals with the bypassing of warrants on international communications, which, by the way, happens to be completely, 100% legal according to the laws on the books. For those of you who dislike this president, this is just another reason to hate him. But you fail to realize that what he authorized is completely legal. And congressional lawmakers on both sides were informed at least a dozen times as to the situation. And the author of the story in the NYT happened to have the story for over a year, before he released it, not coincidentally on the day after the hugely successful Iraqi elections and weeks before the release of his own book.

But what I am talking about. I mean my civil liberties are being violated. I would much rather make sure the government doesn't look at my records from the public library than to have them protect me from another attack. What can this president be thinking? To protect the country, ha. I really think we should impeach him. And while we're at it, let's go back and posthumously impeach FDR, because if you think Bush is bad, you've got no idea what it was like back then. Back then, when the country actually wanted to do anything possible to win a war against a great evil. People in this country, and in the world, quickly forget that we are at war with these maniacs.

You know, come to think of it, the gov't is probably reading this message right now. And I don't care. If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have to worry about being 'spied on.' The NSA and other intelligence agencies are much too busy to be spending their time on regular Joe Schmoes. Collecting intelligence is initially largely computerized, with computers looking for keywords and phrases and such.

Oh, and, George Bush hates black people.

 

[Free4Life11]

LOL @ M: SteveO

Let's see if they are monitoring the DIS.

Tommorow a bomb will explode. Somehwere. I'm not telling you where. You'd know if you had been spying on me!

 

[thelionqueen]

I just have to ask a common sense question here. Does anyone, supporter or non-supporter honestly believe that the President (Bush or anyone else for that matter) would just wake up one morning and say..hmmm...
"I think today I'll go spy on unsuspecting American Citizens, not tell anyone, risk criticism and see what happens?" (edited to note that the people spied on were not all citizens)

Does anyone opponent of Bush honestly think that he does things just becase, and to quote someone else here "King" George feels like it?

Give me a break please! Use common sense. I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat, or anything else...be human and logical here.

There is a reason for what he is doing. He's given it. Whether you believe it or not I think depends on how much free time you have.

I do not agree with everything he has done, but I do believe in his resolve to protect our country from terrorism. I

 

[JVL1018]

I have a question--all this talk previously about "chatter" they had picked up, causing them to raise the threat level at times..how did they obtain that?
I had always assumed that there was spying going on.

I say let them do it, if you've got nothing to hide, no one is going to bother you.
Big Brother, 1984, whatever, it doesn't bother me in the slightest..and I'll even say that I am happy this is being done.

 

[dcentity2000]

I don't think that anyone on Sept. 12, thought that we wouldn't get hit again. Thus far we haven't. I don't think that it was by accident, do you?

Actually, blind luck is more the tone. If a terrorist really wanted to kill someone, they'd grab hold of a machine gun and go into a school. Explosives aren't exactly hard to make and chemical constituents can be bought off the internet in large quantities - then all you need to do is to get onto a packed commuter train, click a button and get off at the next stop. Five minutes later, WHAM, and a lot of people die.

No, it's not that Team America have stopped the terrorists. It's just a breather until some nutter cooks up another attack.

On 9/11, America learned that it was just as vulnerable as every other nation. Soon, she will be struck again.

All we can do is pray.



Rich::

 

[M:SteveO]

So I think I get it now. Bush gets the blame for not doing enough to prevent 9/11 and now he gets blame for doing too much to protect his country. It all makes sense. No matter what the situation is, BLAME BUSH. Attack on his watch = Blame Bush, No attacks since 9/11 = Blame Bush, Global Warming = Blame Bush, Me waking up with a headache today = Blame Bush.

Although I do agree that another attack will most likely occur, there have been many reports about how intelligence services have prevented attacks in this country. Remember the cliche: you don't know when the intelligence community is successful, but you sure know when they're not. They have been successful, and have been more successful by using the tools the President has implemented.

 

[djcruz4fun]

Actually, blind luck is more the tone. If a terrorist really wanted to kill someone, they'd grab hold of a machine gun and go into a school. Explosives aren't exactly hard to make and chemical constituents can be bought off the internet in large quantities - then all you need to do is to get onto a packed commuter train, click a button and get off at the next stop. Five minutes later, WHAM, and a lot of people die.

No, it's not that Team America have stopped the terrorists. It's just a breather until some nutter cooks up another attack.

On 9/11, America learned that it was just as vulnerable as every other nation. Soon, she will be struck again.

All we can do is pray.



Rich::

And I pray that if a Terrorist is planning another attack (and I am certin they are) that my government will do every thing in there power to find the scum and stop them, find who is backing them hunt them down and punish the government, Businesses and private people that are helping them.

 

[dcentity2000]

And I pray that if a Terrorist is planning another attack (and I am certin they are) that my government will do every thing in there power to find the scum and stop them, find who is backing them hunt them down and punish the government, Businesses and private people that are helping them.

lol, the most effective thing the Government can do is cull all of it's citizens and initiate a systematic de-popularisation of the planet - NOT gonna happen (I hope!)



Rich::

 

[M:SteveO]

Actually, blind luck is more the tone. If a terrorist really wanted to kill someone, they'd grab hold of a machine gun and go into a school. Explosives aren't exactly hard to make and chemical constituents can be bought off the internet in large quantities - then all you need to do is to get onto a packed commuter train, click a button and get off at the next stop. Five minutes later, WHAM, and a lot of people die.

No, it's not that Team America have stopped the terrorists. It's just a breather until some nutter cooks up another attack
Rich::

Actually, there are reported incidents of our government foiling terrorist plots, so there is some government involvement in this, despite your unwillingness to give this President any credit whatsoever. Maybe if this executive order was in place before 9/11, it wouldn't have happened. Before 9/11, the Feds got a hold of Zaccarias Moussaoui's computer (you know, the '20th hijacker'). The intelligence community wanted to use the information on the computer to spy and wiretap phone numbers and other contacts in this guy's computer. But, that darned FISA court wouldn't let them, that darned court that President Bush wants to bypass when a person in the USA contacts a known terrorist outside the country. The gov't could have maybe prevented the 9/11 attacks if they had been able to use this information, but that darned court wouldn't let them.

Now for those of you that would like to prevent terrorist attacks, this executive order doesn't seem like such a bad thing. But for those of you that enjoy seeing the US get attacked or don't care that we got attacked or think that your civil liberties are being egregiosly violated by this order, then I can completely understand why you would find this order troubling.

 

[djcruz4fun]

lol, the most effective thing the Government can do is cull all of it's citizens and initiate a systematic de-popularisation of the planet - NOT gonna happen (I hope!)



Rich::

No IMO all you have to do is pull your head out of the sand, Quit hoping that a bunch of godless Murders will come to there senses quit killing any one who dose not believe in Alla, and take action to defend yourself. when the enemy has moved into your neighborhood you have to do some hunting to find them.

 

[dcentity2000]

Actually, there are reported incidents of our government foiling terrorist plots, so there is some government involvement in this, despite your unwillingness to give this President any credit whatsoever. Maybe if this executive order was in place before 9/11, it wouldn't have happened. Before 9/11, the Feds got a hold of Zaccarias Moussaoui's computer (you know, the '20th hijacker'). The intelligence community wanted to use the information on the computer to spy and wiretap phone numbers and other contacts in this guy's computer. But, that darned FISA court wouldn't let them, that darned court that President Bush wants to bypass when a person in the USA contacts a known terrorist outside the country. The gov't could have maybe prevented the 9/11 attacks if they had been able to use this information, but that darned court wouldn't let them.

Now for those of you that would like to prevent terrorist attacks, this executive order doesn't seem like such a bad thing. But for those of you that enjoy seeing the US get attacked or don't care that we got attacked or think that your civil liberties are being egregiosly violated by this order, then I can completely understand why you would find this order troubling.

I hear ya, but my point was that no matter what you do terrorists will survive and they will continue to attack; the only thing that would prevent this would be that systematic de-popularisation of the globe.

For example:

Hi-jackers on planes. Improvements: tougher screening for flight crews, tougher doors to the cockpits, stricter regulations on items on the aeroplane, air marshals. Possible ways to attack by means of aircraft: what if a pilot/air marshal is a terrorist? Both hold positions of power and no matter what the air force does, as soon as you're over a popularised area you're gonna kill a lot of people.

Another example:

Nutters with guns in public places. Improvements: tougher screening on low velocity firearms, blanket ban of automatic weapons. Possible ways to attack by means of firearm: acquire a deactivated weapon and re-activate it (possible), use an air rifle/CO2 pistol, acquire a weapon via the inevitable organised crime groups.

Another example:

Bombs in public places. Improvements: regulate or preferably blanket-ban sale of all weapons grade explosives, stringently watch imports for any offending articles, lots of police in public places. Possible ways to attack via explosives: loads. Acquire small amounts of chemicals from the net, build up a little supply, deposit bomb on a train/bus/ferry and leave. Buy a large supply of fireworks and set them all off in the underground all at once. Anything of the sort, really.

And so on.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that no matter what you do, there will ALWAYS be the possibility of attack, no matter what. You can make things tougher for criminals certainly, by banning guns or by putting air marshals on 'planes but by and large, when someone wants to kill they can very easily do so and on a large scale should the desire be.

There is, therefore, a line to be drawn. You can give up civil liberties and your freedom and democracy in order to defeat the baddies but, just like antidepressants, the effectiveness of the measures becomes less and less the more you pile on.

So where do we stop? Tap all phones? CCTV in all places, including homes? Satellite tag all cars? Read all eMails? All this would help, certainly, but would that amount of help be worth the cost in terms of freedom?

Worse still, how much work would we be doing for the terrorists? They hate freedom, we're told, so if we destroy our freedoms we inevitably help them. Therefore, at some point, the effectiveness of measures develops a negative trend, just like, um, antidepressants.

No-one is saying that measures should not be taken, but a large majority of the developed world has decided that current measures taken by the Bush administration are disproportionate to the threat faced. I'm one with that majority.



Rich::

 

[LastTycoon]

So I think I get it now. Bush gets the blame for not doing enough to prevent 9/11 and now he gets blame for doing too much to protect his country. It all makes sense. No matter what the situation is, BLAME BUSH.

Totally. You can see all of this coming. All of these America Haters whining about the intelligence we did have that was virtually ignored- ""Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S," blah blah blah and complaining about the government allowing hundreds, if not thousands of "OTM's" (Other Than Mexicans), that in many instances, are from nations deemed to be dangerous enemies of the US, to enter the US, camouflaged among the many illegal immigrant Mexicans on the same route. But when Bush does actually try to help, what do they do? Whine and complain. I expect to find many more posts about "warrants" and "probable cause" and "will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution Of the United States," blah blah blah. Typical, hippie, New York Times, crap.

 

[Bayshore Bandit]

How can people who want to see the elected leader of our free country
abide by the laws and uphold our Constitution be America haters??

 

[DawnCt1]

Actually, blind luck is more the tone. If a terrorist really wanted to kill someone, they'd grab hold of a machine gun and go into a school. Explosives aren't exactly hard to make and chemical constituents can be bought off the internet in large quantities - then all you need to do is to get onto a packed commuter train, click a button and get off at the next stop. Five minutes later, WHAM, and a lot of people die.

No, it's not that Team America have stopped the terrorists. It's just a breather until some nutter cooks up another attack.

On 9/11, America learned that it was just as vulnerable as every other nation. Soon, she will be struck again.

All we can do is pray.



Rich::

I disagree Rich. Many attacks have been thwarted that I am sure we will never hear about. Al Qaeda operatives have been arrested and killed by the hundreds. Luck has had nothing to do with it.

 

[dcentity2000]

I disagree Rich. Many attacks have been thwarted that I am sure we will never hear about. Al Qaeda operatives have been arrested and killed by the hundreds. Luck has had nothing to do with it.

Luck has everything to do with it, Dawn. Perfection is but a dream to us imperfect humans - we are not invulnerable. We may be protected, but not perfectly so. Even in the IRA days, London still shook under the blasts of the bombs, and this in a country that had instigated a "guilty-until-proven-innocent" policy.

No, no matter how good your defences are, you're always vulnerable. I mean, even if you stop 99.9% of all attacks by putting CCTV in people's homes etc, you're still eventually going to get hit.

The point stands.



Rich::

 

[dennis99ss]

Ah yes.

If you are not a bad guy, you have nothing to worry about.....Guess what people, the NSA computer picks screening, which means if a bad guy calls you, for whatever reason, you are then monitored. So, if you sell sea shells by the sea shore, and bad guy calls you from his cell phone that is on the NSA list, your phone then becomes on the list. You are not a bad guy, but the Gov't knows what you do.

Were you in Vegas in 2003, for New Years? Why does the Gov't have all arrivals and departures, all CC slips, saved? Does it concern you that what goes on in Vegas does not stay in Vegas for this insatance?

Of course, if you are a Quaker, watch out, because the Defense Dept thinks you are threat.

Then to the post about pilots, etc, being hijackers......Guess what people, the US has laws that forbid foreign control of US airlines....Guess what, this pres. is contemplating allowing foreign ownership of US airlines........majority ownership, and this has the green light from the white house....that means foreign born, foreign trained pilots of domestic flights being allowed......But, I guess Egypt Air is of no concern to you. And, of course, those friends of George have gotten their bailout from the Govt. after 9-11, and now want to cash out, without suffering a loss.

To those who say they are happy that this is being done......are you willing to allow the President to usurp his executive powers, and tread upon the legislative and judical ones? If the president is allowed to usurp the judical branch, of its oversight, who is to say that this is not the only instance that such activity will take place.

I find it amazing that the 35% I mentioned in my OP, of which DawnCt is the blindest of the blind, that they are actually part of a party that is for less government involvement. This seems to me to be more government involvement. Further, if the president does this, isn't that the most extreme form of activism, which, of course, DawnCt does not want? Couldn't Judge Alito grant a warrant?

I think the most prophetic, and most insightful note on this thread comes from a Brit.

1. People who try to limit your civil liberties are the Bad Guys - Good Guys stand tall and proud, a pillar of strength to the world. When it's your principals that set you apart, only the weak compromise.
2. Guilty until proven innocent policies gain you no ground. The UK learnt the hard way with the IRA in particular.

[EDIT]: Another one just sprung to mind - people who tell you that an incursion on your liberties is necessary for your own good yet do not furnish you with particulars are usually up to no good.