Bush defends phone-tapping policy
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 44

Thread: Bush defends phone-tapping policy

  1. #1
    AO Guinness Monster MURACU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    paris
    Posts
    1,003

    Bush defends phone-tapping policy

    So has Bush finally gone totally paranoid?

    BBC source

    US President George W Bush has again defended his decision to allow eavesdropping on Americans in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks.
    I love these lines :
    It was not in the best interests of the country for people to "play politics" with the Patriot Act, he said, while answering reporters' questions.
    Mr Bush also said he expected a "full investigation" into who leaked information about the wiretap programme.

    "My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important programme in a time of war," he said.
    "The fact that we're discussing this programme is helping the enemy," he added.

    So will he make the next three years?
    \"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.\"
    \"The reason we are so pleased to find other people\'s secrets is that it distracts public attention from our own.\"
    Oscar Wilde(1854-1900)

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    If congress has any balls at all ush gets impeached over this. We are a democarcy with laws that even our goverment has to obide...this si the kind of crap thrid world dictators, and old line communist countrys pull. We canned nixon for less, they whent after clinton for haveing sex. Bush violated the rights of every citizan of the country and flat out ignored the constitution he needs to be axed.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  3. #3
    The ******* Shadow dalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,564
    Thankfully for you guys, your leaders can only do two terms (8yrs), unfortunatley the party can do longer(unlike us, were stuck with the boob untill we vote the party out) so hopefully the rest of his lackeys will understand that the US citizens are tired of having their civil liberties tramped on for the sake of the Patriot Act, and will not resurrect the act and let it die a decent death.

    But are you guy's really surprised about this, the minute this act became enacted the Feds were wiretapping "legally" sort of right.....?
    PC Registered user # 2,336,789,457...

    "When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."
    Claude Swanson

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    62
    actually the president of the united states has a power called the executive order. these orders basically have the force of law and require no action by congress to have them enacted. also according to attorney general gonzales, a bill turned law in the days following 9/11 gave the president the right to authorize unwarrented wiretaps such as the ones in question.

  5. #5
    Senior Member hesperus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    416
    The legislation is mirrored almost perfectly in Canada.

    While formerly the CSE (Canadian Secuity Establishment) was prevented from intercepting the private communications of Canadians by Part VI of the Criminal Code, the ATA’s (Anti-Terrorism Act) addition of s. 273.65 and 273.69 to the Defense Act appear to give the Minister of Defense the power to authorize the CSE to intercept communications that originate or terminate in Canada, as long as “the interception is directed at foreign entities located outside Canada”. Sections 273.65 (1) and (3) restrict such authorizations to “the sole purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence” and the “sole purpose of protecting the computer systems or networks of the Government of Canada”, but there is no express prohibition on the CSE giving information to law enforcement about Canadians.
    Source (page 45)

    Don't forget that ECHELON has been going on for decades, and even though monitoring the citizens of the participating countries was ruled out by separate legislation, it is hard to imagine that their communication didn't get sucked up and analyzed along with everything else. The Patriot and Anti-terrorism acts simply make it lawful to act on what was more or less already there.
    .

  6. #6
    The ******* Shadow dalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,564
    E) ensure that, to the extent permitted by law, all appropriate and necessary intelligence and law enforcement information relating to homeland security is disseminated to and exchanged among appropriate executive departments and agencies responsible for homeland security and, where appropriate for reasons of homeland security, promote exchange of such information with and among State and local governments and private entities.
    Executive Order

    Notice where it states to the extent permitted by law, in other words, unless you have a warrant it is against the law to wiretap or intercept private individuals communications. So George Dubya had better show ccopies of all of the warrants requested using this directive as justification.



    Presidential executive orders can be overturned in three ways: subsequent executive order, congressional action such as a statute, and judicial process. Congress can act statutorily to overturn the EO, but will need to be able to overcome a presidential veto of the legislation as well.
    Because the Constitution's definition of presidential authority is vague, the rules about what can be included in an executive order are unclear. A 1950s Supreme Court decision overturning a Harry Truman executive order offers the sharpest guide to what constitutes a legitimate executive order. The court invalidated the Truman order on the grounds that it attempted to make law. The court further ruled that an executive order is valid only when the president is acting pursuant to an act of Congress or to the Constitution itself. As a result, presidential orders frequently identify the statutes they are relying on: Clinton's AIDS drug order cites three laws.

    The Supreme Court has been reluctant to hear challenges to executive orders: It has rejected only two, Truman's and a 1996 Clinton order barring the federal government from contracting with companies that hire permanent strikebreakers. (Correction, 5/18: Slate reader Kenneth R. Mayer correctly points out that it was not the Supreme Court but the D.C. Court of Appeals that overturned Clinton's order.) The court's unwillingness to intervene has freed presidents to issue orders on a wide range of subjects. President Clinton, for example, has used orders as controversial as designating Yugoslavia a combat zone and as insignificant as establishing a new military medal.

    Congress retains the power to revoke or de-fund an executive order but has rarely exercised that authority.
    What is an Executive Order?

    Congress still has the last word, wether or not George tries to veto it (which he would only do at the peril of his own party) or not, I think the boys in Congress need to grow some B*lls and send a message to this sitting President and to who ever follows, that they are there for the people and not their cronies.

    Your probably asking yourselves why would a Canadian care about this at all, well as one old Canadian Politician once said, when the elephant beside you decides to roll over, either get out of the way or get squashed, anything that basically happens in the US will at some point affect us as well, so it is in our best interests to see that you guys protect your civil liberties as much as possible, because if you lose yours, then sh*t we might as well give up now and sign zee papers...
    PC Registered user # 2,336,789,457...

    "When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."
    Claude Swanson

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    320
    Ok, whoa!

    "My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important programme in a time of war," he said.
    You are taking that totally out of context. When he said that, he was reffering to the idiot that published the American's abilty to track Osama through his satellite phone. We were tracking him, someone let the cat out of the bag, and now we aren' tracking him.

    Another thing. I am sure I can dig up at least one post from some of you that says bush isn't doing enough to stop terrorists. What do you think this is? In case anyone forgot, we still are at war with terrorists, and using conventional methods isn't going to do the job. (No, appeasing mad-men doesn't count)

    Now, I'm not saying that every American here should have the government listening to them talk about their spouse/job/<insert personal information> But at the same time, don't pretend that the government cares about your spouse satisfaction/job satisfaction/etc... This Act isn't for that. And I kind of doubt that the NSA spends time spying on you... Unless you are a money launderer or terrorist supporter. It is a slippery slope to total invasion of privacy, but let's not pretend that is hasn't been usefull... We ARE still at war, and no matter what anyone tells you, If you live in any democratic, westerized country, they want to kill you. The patriot act has even saved some of you guys across the pond.



    Just my $0.02... later
    The fool doth think he is wise, but the wiseman knows himself to be a fool - Good Ole Bill Shakespeare

  8. #8
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716
    I hope all the civil libertarians will be as bold
    after the islamic fascists overthrow our government
    and institute their version of "civil liberties". Think it's not possible?
    Study the fall of the Byzantine Empire.
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  9. #9
    AO Guinness Monster MURACU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    paris
    Posts
    1,003
    When he said that, he was reffering to the idiot that published the American's abilty to track Osama through his satellite phone. We were tracking him, someone let the cat out of the bag, and now we aren' tracking him.
    All bush or anyone else needed to do was read Tom Clancys book "Clear and present Danger" and they would have know that the NSA had the abilitys to track such calls over 15 years ago.
    To be honest the point that makes me laught with this is bush whining about it being leaked when the white house didnt hesitate to leak information about an active CIA agent just to undermine her husband.
    Just seen bush on the news here, it might be just me, but he always looks like he is startled. Kinda like a rabbit caught in the head lights of a car.
    \"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.\"
    \"The reason we are so pleased to find other people\'s secrets is that it distracts public attention from our own.\"
    Oscar Wilde(1854-1900)

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    320
    All bush or anyone else needed to do was read Tom Clancys book "Clear and present Danger" and they would have know that the NSA had the abilitys to track such calls over 15 years ago.
    I'm not so sure that novels have any relevence here, MURACU. And, yes we may have had the ability, until someone told Osama. It is kind of hard to track someone by their cell phone when they are not using said cell phone.

    To be honest the point that makes me laught with this is bush whining about it being leaked when the white house didnt hesitate to leak information about an active CIA agent just to undermine her husband.
    Ummm, Bush hasn't been indicted... Maybe if he is, you may have a point.

    Civil libertarians... did you read my post ? I am in favor of the patriot act. It isn't perfect, but what in this world is ? We need the Patriot act.
    The fool doth think he is wise, but the wiseman knows himself to be a fool - Good Ole Bill Shakespeare

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •