NYT: Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say

New York Times ^ | December 15, 2005 | JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAUD

[zook]

There's no evidence so far that President Bush broke any law. He has the authority to monitor foreign communications even if one party is an American citizen.

[rattrap]

Sure Comrade, you just keep on voting for more power for the fed. Just make sure to keep your papers in order.

[rattrap]

What about a war that never ends?

Well then it would be a problem, but seeing as the end of the WoT and WoD are in sight I don't have a problem with the goverment stationing an agent in my house til next week when it's all over.

[zook]

"What about a war that never ends?"

Now you've exposed yourself. That's a clever left wing line. But as someone once said, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness. The "war that never ends" exists only in the minds of those unwilling to grapple with reality. And the reality is that we will win this war, once the handwringing stops.

Now, here's a question that, if you answer honestly, will blow your argument to bits. What happened to all those freedoms we lost during WWII?

[zook]

Paint your basement windows black and buy your wife or daughter a nice burka. They'll need it.

[rattrap]

Do you really, honestly believe it's even a remote possiblilty that islamists could take over this country and impose their will on us?

[rattrap]

To add to my last post. I just don't understand the mindset that even remotely believes in that possibilty. Is your faith in the American people so fleeting?

[zook]

I believe that this is possible, yes. Not next year, maybe not in ten. They could do it by waging a terror war inside the US, assisted, of course, by those unwilling to allow reasonable intelligence operations within our country. Can you really say you see no chance of terror attacks becoming widespread within this nation? If that happens, we'll find some small humor in thinking about those who were so concerned about a bit of eavesdropping.

[zook]

Frankly, I'm not sure how much faith to have in the American people. I'm not sure how many people want to defend this country anymore. I'm not sure how many are happy to simply keep their heads in the sand.

Moreover, I don't want to wait until we wake up to a new terror attack to find out how much faith I ought to have.

[af_vet_rr]

One AF Vet to another, you have it a little off.

They don't want us to throw our freedom away. They want us to change into them.

I disagree. The only way we could change into religious fanatics like them, is if we threw our freedom away.

Much of what their societies and religion stands for, flys in the face of the ideals our nation was founded upon. Look at the Taliban - they wanted control over everything, so they could punish people at will, in the name of Allah.

Don't get me wrong - the Islamic Radicals wanted to convert anybody and everybody they can. They made a big mistake though - they attacked something the US could not ignore and they also opened the door for the war in Iraq (I've never believed it was about WMDs, I've always believed that many in the administration wanted to remove the threat Iraq posed once and for all as well as get a semi-Pro American society in the midst of the Middle East).

Now it's a war of survival. If Iraq and Afghanistan can maintain a free society, the very core of Islam will be threatened.

That is why the radicals have no problem trying to intimidate the Iraqi people, trying to scare them away from government posts, from joining the Iraqi police, the Iraqi National Guard, etc., and that is why they have no problem killing innocent women and children. That is why there are so many insurgents flocking to Iraq, because their masters know that a free Iraq is dangerous to their societies.

If democracy can take hold in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the standard of living will rise, and people in the surrounding nations will say "hey, they have it pretty good, why are hell are we putting up with this crap", and they will get restless.

It's the exact same reason why China would love to smash the freedom lovers in Hong Kong, and it's the exact same reason why China wants to take out Taiwan.

From a strategic point of view, and as an AF vet you might be able to appreciate this - if you look at all of the Islamic nations in the Middle East as a whole - by potentially creating democratic societies in Iraq and Afghanistan, we went and setup a big base (Afghanistan) in the middle of their flank, and then we setup a really big base (Iraq) almost in the middle of their rear

India is going to keep Pakistan in check. A free Afghanistan and free Iraq are going to keep Iran and Syria in check. Lebanon, Israel, and to an extent Turkey and Jordan are also going to keep them in check (not so much Jordan, but I'll take a moderate undemocratic Islamic state over a radical undemocratic state like Iran any day). Egypt will mind their P's and Q's - even if they aren't democratic, they have too much to lose to join up with the other states.

As far as the Saudis, Kuwait, and the other smaller gulf states - even if they aren't free, and many of their people are radicals, it's in the interest of their leadership to keep things dialed down as much as possible.

As a result, 10 or 15 years from now, if Iraq and Afghanistan can just hold on, you will see a much less radical Middle East.

I have a child, as well as friends, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They've talked to the people their (unlike most reporters). The Iraqi and Afghanistani people - most of them want freedom. The press won't tell you this, but those people want it desperately.

I have a lot of problems with George Bush, and his lack of Conservative ideolgy these days, and his disregard for our national security, but I will set a lot of that aside if Iraq and Afghanistan can stay free.

[rattrap]

Israel has widespread terror attacks in their country. I don't see Israeli women wearing Burkas. Attacks in our country would only serve to lessen chances of surrender.

Put your faith in America and not in it's goverment. A few hundred votes and President Gore (perish the thought) would have been dealing with 9/11. My faith in Americans to handle the problem would've been the same as it is now.

[Triple]

One day maybe, but it would have taken some time to come up with eo 13039.

but I do know that 13039 put the grapple under lockdown as it was effectively in navspecwardevgrp (close on the alphabet soup command).

[Triple]

One day maybe, but it would have taken some time to come up with eo 13039.

but I do know that 13039 put the grapple under lockdown as it was effectively in navspecwardevgrp (close on the alphabet soup command).

[af_vet_rr]

You think like a liberal. What if portions of Europe or even Canada fall to the facists?

If defending the Constitution makes you think of me as having liberal thoughts, then what kind of Conservative are you? I don't mean that as a personal attack - I mean that as a very serious question - since when is it a bad thing to defend the Constitution - 10s of millions of us have put on the uniform to do so, so I know I'm in good company

How about if a terrorist group sets off a nuke or two in a couple of our major cities?

I highly doubt that such a scenario is possible - if it was, then President Bush would have worked on securing the borders. He has access to a lot more current intelligence on the WMD sitution in the world than you or I do - I don't agree with his policy on leaving the border open, but I feel fairly confident that he's done so because his people don't see any solid proof that such a scenario is possible.

What if portions of Europe or even Canada fall to the facists?

You could spy on every American citizen and that wouldn't stop either of those two scenarios from happening, and you are not even clear on whether you mean religious or political fascists.

If you mean religious (i.e. Islamic) - neither scenario is really possible - Europe is too libera and I would see a huge backlash against Islamics - the Germans have been getting mighty testy here and there, we know where the Dutch stand, and I have a feeling that there was about to be a mini-civil war in France if things had gone on longer.

Canada? They can't even decide what language to speak half the time. I don't see that scenario happening, because if they can't agree on a common language, I don't see them agreeing on a common religion.

Europe - Political fascism is already taking hold in parts of Europe. The forming of the European Union kicked it off. The fight with the USA over control of the root servers was a small step (a very critical step - if they could have pulled it off, they would have much easier ways to control what their citizens can have access to). Even this week they passed a new directive that will require Internet service providers and phone companies to keep data on every electronic message sent and phone call made for between six months and two years. The only good thing about such a scenario with Europe - quite a few Eastern European countries have no desire to go under the yoke again so soon, and neither do the Dutch nor the British nor the Scandinavian countries (maybe Finland, they've always been a little strange when it came to politics, but that's more than likely due to the presence of their very large neighbor).

[billbears]

No, I wouldn't, but if there were valid reasons for some actions, not usually acceptable in peacetime, if it meant the survival of our nation, I would.

Funny didn't see that power covered under the Constitution. But never mind, I would expect no less from Republicans, considering their history.

The democrats are prepared to hand us to our enemies and it's quite evident by their actions,

Oh yes. Preserving liberty will hand us right over to the enemy. Much better to centralize more power with the 537 hacks that call themselves our leaders

that a return to power is more important than any other concern.

And yet the same urgent desire to stay in power by the Republicans is acceptable with you. Partisanship? Never. They care, they really do

Perhaps you hadn't noticed that there is a war on?

Now are you talking about the incursion into Iraq or the continued attack on our liberties by our 'leaders'?

Perhaps you would have prefered, "They should be hung, after a fair and impartial trial of their peers."

Why of course!! Why don't you try finding a judge who will agree with you. I would suggest the most conservative Janice Rogers Brown or even Justice Clarence Thomas but they would laugh you out of their respective courts. And of course you have charges to bring up against them? Let me guess? Treason? 'Conservatives' do so overuse that word you wouldn't know what it was if it bit you in the arse.

Perhaps you think all this is somehow magically going away?

Our freedoms? Not magically at all. Step by step. With full support by the party faithful

I'm not going for that,"It's all one party, they are all the same" nonsense, if you can't tell the difference you have no business voting.

Hmmmm, let's see. Government waste? Check. Say whatever it takes to get into office? Check. Full prosecution of whatever 'war' happens to be their party's focus at the time? Check. Expansion of government and intrusion into the powers of the separate and sovereign states as they see fit? Check.

Nope you're right. There's a biiig difference < /sarc>

[higgmeister]

The only way we could change into religious fanatics like them, is if we threw our freedom away.

The real danger is that we might die at their hands
because we will not change.

This won't just blow over or get better in ten or fifteen
years. It matters not what individual Muslims think or
feel. If the Ayatollahs, Imams and Mullahs command
them it is like the iron hand of god. They will blindly
obey their leaders. Every Muslim gives tacit support
of terrorism because they have no choice.

Radical Islamism must be destroyed to the same degree
Shintoism was at the end of WWII. It must be done now,
rather than fifty years from now when they have had time
to organize our destruction. Yes, I will give up freedoms
to crush this evil that would rule the world.

Give my love to your kid and his friends and tell them
to stay always alert.

[Blzbba]

"If we had allowed our hands to be tied in WWII the way you'd have them tied now, there might have been a very different outcome."



Yeah, locking up those Japs taught 'em a lesson!

[higgmeister]

Yeah, locking up those Japs taught 'em a lesson!

Winning the war with nuclear weapons and therefore no hope
of further resistance, taught the Japanese to modify Shintoism
and end the code of Bushido.

This must happen with Radical Islam. It must be destroyed
with no hope of further resistance.

[af_vet_rr]

The real danger is that we might die at their hands because we will not change.

You've not read anything I've said. They can kill you, me, and thousands of other Americans, but the USA and the Constitution would live on.

Only by giving up freedom and liberty, can we allow the US to be destroyed, because without freedom the USA would turn into just one more despotic totalitarian regime.

Just like the regimes that our troops have been fighting against in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just like the regimes our parents fought against in WWII.

Yes, I will give up freedoms to crush this evil that would rule the world.

You can, I won't. I didn't serve my country, and my daughter and nephews are not currently serving, just so we can give up our freedoms.

Go find your father or grandfather who was around during WWII. Tell them that you think we should give up freedom to "crush this evil that would rule the world". Watch them become angry and red in the face and tell you that a certain dictator used that exact reasoning to come to power.

[af_vet_rr]

I'm not invoking Godwin's Law by the way, because it is a direct reference, and therefore relevant.