What should we do with Bush?

[Electrophil]

The reason we are sitting over here in one of the youngest countries in the world, yet holding the oldest living Constitution in the world, is our system of checks and balances. They have to stay in place because it works.

There has been a system in place to get warrants for tapping under high security conditions since the 70's. As everyone knows by now, the system gave them 72 hours AFTER the fact to get them approved.

It's not even the specific act of the tapping. It's the "crossing the line". It's the deviation of the norm that is happening in our country that is moving our grey line. If this is OK, then this is OK, then this is OK... etc.

I doubt if anyone here feels they are personally being monitored. There is where Lee may be misunderstanding the point. Most of our society do not feel they are being monitored....today. Therefore, he may be misconstruing that point into support for wire tapping. But maybe we aren't thinking about that deviation that keeps happening... That keeps moving our line.

Personal example: If, in the outrageous high probability against myself being monitored, say I do call one of Bush's buddies in Saudi Arabia. Say it happens to be a monitoring area, and I set off the system to monitor me. What do I do that would be considered against the law? Griping about the administration? That puts me waaaayyyy off from getting in trouble. There are quite a few of us griping at this point, and it is a basic right granted us by the 1st amendment in our Bill of Rights.

But if we allow our government to keep moving that line. When will that become waayy off... then way off...then ehhh... then "Dude, be careful"..... then picked up and arrested for "inciting a riot". Inciting a riot is not a right in our country, and could even be considered in this day and age as a terrorist act. Am I "inciting a riot"? No... not in todays norm of thinking, I am not. But can the line be moved? That question can be answered easily by another question. When did it become OK to perform wiretaps without a warrant? 9/11? I guess it's easy to say "Yes! Absolutely because of 9/11!" But if you do, consider the deviation from the norm, and who won? Who has lost liberty and where will it stop? Does it stop just at wiretaps in sealed documents in the name of fighting terrorism? Does it stop at holding individuals for years with no charges brought forward in the name of terrorism? How does the slow vaporization of our rights stop?

(Here we go.... Dey r hoding terrerists!! du u want ta just let dem go to bombs us?? No, I want to know if they are terrorists. They've shown us people paying the bills nothing. They are breaking the bonds of our Constitution.)

It can only stop with the people and holding the ones doing the damage to our liberties accountable for not following our constitution.

If we let ANY of it slide, we are not holding up the democratic principles of our country, and that, in my opinion, is unpatriotic.

[Royal Tiger]

I look at the top people on democratic side and just wonder how this happened. Nancy Pelosi? Chuck Schumer? Barbara Boxster? hilory clinton? Howard Dean? Aggh. These people would adopt the hammer, sickle, stars, and stripes if we let them. We need balance, which I don't see in our future. Like it or not, Bush was still the lesser of two evils. Sad day when that prophacy is true. No one from the dems in '08 looks any better.

[Electrophil]

By the way, if they can set up a system to automatically trigger through a database a suspected communicator to a suspected terrorist, they can also extend that system to automatically execute a warrant request that can be automatically emailed to the proper authorities.

Absolutely no reason... none.. to have a warrantless tap in our country.

Back on subject: Another of the many charges that need to be thoroughly investigated, and charges brought forward if warranted.

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by Tigershark

I look at the top people on democratic side and just wonder how this happened. Nancy Pelosi? Chuck Schumer? Barbara Boxster? hilory clinton? Howard Dean? Aggh. These people would adopt the hammer, sickle, stars, and stripes if we let them. We need balance, which I don't see in our future. Like it or not, Bush was still the lesser of two evils. Sad day when that prophacy is true. No one from the dems in '08 looks any better.

And this point frustrates me most of all.

Edit: After looking at this, it may not be clear. I am saying I agree, none of them look good to me either, and that frustrates me. I feel voting republican at this point gives a "OK" to the way business is being run. Or as Bush calls it.. A mandate from the people. But (*&^(*(*^!!! Who the (*&% am I going to vote for? It's frustrating.

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

As good old R Reagan would say "There you go again." Making incomplete, half truth and misleading statements..

First, you know full well that I was talking about the overwhelming support for the foreign/domestic wiretaps which is at approximately 70 percent and not the overall support for the Bush performance.

I might also point out that the Democrats are very quiet now about the issue because they have found out that the 8 member intelligence oversite committee WAS IN FACT being kept informed of the entire program. The overwhelming approval of the very author of the NSA program (Gen Hayden) to be the new head of the CIA further proves what I have just said.

Your next wrong statement concerns the Search Warrant. You imply that it was only to search his residences and that no judge would sign a warrant to search the Capitol offices. Well read the warrant for yourself and quit making statements that you have no basis in fact for making.

http://www.npr.org/documents/2006/may/sw_redacted.pdf

For you info that specifically permits the search of Room 2113 of the Raburn House Office Building and even in his own handwriting on the first page, the judge orders the Capital Police to provide access to the office.

Now as to the constitutional legality of this search, that is for the Supreme Court to decide. By just reading the actual Constitution, I personally see nothing that precludes it as the Congressman was not going to or from the house to vote on a bill. He was involved in criminal activity. Total bribes exceeding $300K.

You seem to be hedging your bet about if a judge did approve it, then it must be one of Bush's appointees. Well, I don't know about that, but a judge did sign the warrant and so what if it was a Bush appointee. The Supreme Court will STILL decide ultimately if it was or is legal and within the Constitution.

IF it is not within the Constitution to search the offices of a member of the legislative branch for further evidence in a criminal case (consistent with legal searches and seizures)----we are in deep doo-doo. And you will note that Republicans are as much up at arms as the Demos---but it is definitely time we got crooks out of the legislature--no matter which party.

Just the facts Robert--just the facts.

Lee

PS: Beav, thanks for the view from a different and impartial prespective. Not that you don't support one side or the other, but that your insight definitely provides food for thought.

If you feel our country should be converted into a socialistic society with suppression, and state rule, modeled after the old USSR, that's your right.

Luckily there are plenty of organizations to keep this from happening smoothly, but you've made a great start over the last few years.

[Royal Tiger]

I vote for a facist police state. Look up the crime rate in Germany from 1936 through 1945. Works for me!

[Beav]

Well gee, you had a lot of choice. Basically it was a 'yer wid me or agin me' thing. If you're with me you probably aren't a criminal...

Funny thing is all the info was there before 9/11. Sad thing is we didn't know it. A lot of people have thrown many others under the bus and accused others of incompetence. I'm not advocating illegal wiretapping, search and seizure, etc. This is just part of the price of freedom, pure and simple. The price isn't paid by only those that fight in the military.

So, who you y'all think we should blame for that?

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

The reason we are sitting over here in one of the youngest countries in the world, yet holding the oldest living Constitution in the world, is our system of checks and balances. They have to stay in place because it works.

There has been a system in place to get warrants for tapping under high security conditions since the 70's. As everyone knows by now, the system gave them 72 hours AFTER the fact to get them approved.

It's not even the specific act of the tapping. It's the "crossing the line". It's the deviation of the norm that is happening in our country that is moving our grey line. If this is OK, then this is OK, then this is OK... etc.

I doubt if anyone here feels they are personally being monitored. There is where Lee may be misunderstanding the point. Most of our society do not feel they are being monitored....today. Therefore, he may be misconstruing that point into support for wire tapping. But maybe we aren't thinking about that deviation that keeps happening... That keeps moving our line.

Personal example: If, in the outrageous high probability against myself being monitored, say I do call one of Bush's buddies in Saudi Arabia. Say it happens to be a monitoring area, and I set off the system to monitor me. What do I do that would be considered against the law? Griping about the administration? That puts me waaaayyyy off from getting in trouble. There are quite a few of us griping at this point, and it is a basic right granted us by the 1st amendment in our Bill of Rights.

But if we allow our government to keep moving that line. When will that become waayy off... then way off...then ehhh... then "Dude, be careful"..... then picked up and arrested for "inciting a riot". Inciting a riot is not a right in our country, and could even be considered in this day and age as a terrorist act. Am I "inciting a riot"? No... not in todays norm of thinking, I am not. But can the line be moved? That question can be answered easily by another question. When did it become OK to perform wiretaps without a warrant? 9/11? I guess it's easy to say "Yes! Absolutely because of 9/11!" But if you do, consider the deviation from the norm, and who won? Who has lost liberty and where will it stop? Does it stop just at wiretaps in sealed documents in the name of fighting terrorism? Does it stop at holding individuals for years with no charges brought forward in the name of terrorism? How does the slow vaporization of our rights stop?

(Here we go.... Dey r hoding terrerists!! du u want ta just let dem go to bombs us?? No, I want to know if they are terrorists. They've shown us people paying the bills nothing. They are breaking the bonds of our Constitution.)

It can only stop with the people and holding the ones doing the damage to our liberties accountable for not following our constitution.

If we let ANY of it slide, we are not holding up the democratic principles of our country, and that, in my opinion, is unpatriotic.

First of all, I will repeat myself. IF your phone number appeared on an Al Quaeda computer captured in Afghanistan or Iraq and was monitored for calls to it orginating from one of those countries--I say GOOD.

Now lets get to the real problem in this whole affair. It really starts with the laws or lack of laws that govern domestic and foreign intelligence and specifically the activities of the CIA versus FBI. The CIA operates under few controlling laws. It wiretaps freely in overseas operations. No court order required. The FBI of course is governed by strict laws concerning wiretaps. So we actually have a different set of laws that apply. Since the phone originates overseas OR is made to an overseas area---the foreign end of the conversation can legally be listened to without consideration for our domestic laws. Of course if you listen to one end--you hear the other end. This is really the crux of the whole issue. Is it domestic spying or foreign intelligence gathering? Again I will cite my example above and prefer that it be monitored versus left alone for planning terrorist activities. That is in line with the opinion of approximately 70 percent of the population.

Again I will say that it is very clear that the Congressional oversight committee has been kept up to date on the issue or it would still be a front page issue and Gen Hayden (the author of the activity) would never have been confirmed by the large margin that he was.

The difference in pre 9/11 and post 9/11 is that previously the CIA could not provide the FBI information from the overseas CIA wiretaps even if they uncovered criminal activity. And since terroism was treated as a criminal activity, it applied to information obtained from terrorists or potential terrorists. That is what caused the 9/11 problem---the barrier from exchanging information EVEN when the national interest was involved. The Patriot Act removed that wall. Thank goodness.

Lee

[Royal Tiger]

Here's how I see it as a Professional Law Enforcement individual and a veteran. The only people who seem to cry about invasion of privacy and "rights" are those breaking the laws in the first place. If I get stopped for a red light and the officer/trooper/deputy wants to look in my trunk, go ahead, knock yourself out. There are no drugs or bodies in there. The criminals wrap thier filthy a$$es in our laws and wipe thier butts with our freedoms. Anything that loosens the restrictions on catching the guilty is OK by me. I highly doubt the FBI will want to listen to me and the wife argue over the cost of the groceries while I'm at work.

[Beav]

I hear ya but you know as well as I the old adage "give them an inch..."

It's a complicated issue without an easy answer. I'm just tired of finger pointers that have nothing else to offer. My intention here wasn't to point a finger but to bend a few. Sixty some years ago a lot of people became murderous sheep by listening to the biggest mouth flapping and a lot of others died as a result. I'd just like to see people use their own noodles and not rely so much on those that trade on ill will and controversy.

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by Beav

Just tosssing this in to stir the brew a bit. I record, mostly textbooks, for the blind and dyslexic (did I spell that right? ;-) on a volunteer basis. The purpose of me telling you is that I don't normally get to complete an entire text.

Everything in this thread, so far, has been negative and accusatory - this included (on purpose.) How about structuring it towards solutions instead? I'll be over here, sitting behind the chicken-wire fence....

I appear to have started something and Beav, you are my mate. Always, regardless of what you say, you are a logical bugger. stick to it.

Originally Posted by lhopp77

That is in line with the opinion of approximately 70 percent of the population.

Lee

I thought we already had this conversation in another thread. I haven't been paying attention the last few days - has a new poll come out?

"...only 41% of US folks support the NSA's snooping program"
http://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/show...5&postcount=75
http://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/show...8&postcount=78


51% oppose NSA database
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
Updated 5/14/2006 8:20 PM ET
http://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/show...1&postcount=79

Actually, even the poll you referred to back then didn't have 70% approval.

"...63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism..."
"...A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051200375.html

Could you give me a reference for that 70% please?


It has also been questioned whether a phone survey is even the correct methodology for a valid poll about phone monitoring

[comment]
"I'm disappointed you didn't discuss my belief that the results of a telephone survey about privacy and electronic monitoring are likely invalid by definition. A person who places a low value on their personal privacy seems to be much more likely to speak on the telephone and answer personal and potentially controversial questions than a person who places a high value on personal privacy. I'm not sure you could pick a question for a phone survey that would have a significantly greater skewing effect than the Post/ABC question.

[answer to comment]
I'm not sure questions about privacy are "invalid by definition," but DRM makes a fair point about the potential for non-response bias on a question like this. In other words, those who refuse the survey may have different opinions on these issue than those who participate.

It certainly makes intuitive sense that those who refuse interview requests are more likely to value their privacy, and thus be more likely to take the privacy-protection side of this debate. But ultimately the extent of any such "skewing" is unknowable, since hard core survey-refusers would presumably refuse to participate whether the survey was done on the phone, in person, by mail or over the Internet."
http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/...o_on_nsa_.html

Summary of polls I've seen so far:

ABC News/Washington Post -- 63% consider the program an “acceptable way” to “investigate terrorism,” 35% consider it unacceptable (May 11, n=502 adults).

Newsweek -- 41% consider the program a “necessary tool” and 53% say it “goes too far” (May 11-12, n=1,007 adults).

USA Today/Gallup -- 43% approve of the program and 51% disapprove (May 12-13, n=809 adults).

CNN/ORC -- 54% say the NSA phone records program was right and 39% say it was wrong (May 16-17, n=1,022 adults).

CBS News -- 51% approve of the program and 44% disapprove (May 16-17, n=636 adults).

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics -- 52% support the program and 41% oppose (May 16-18, n=900 registered voters).

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/05...y1658217.shtml

[lhopp77]

I will simply post this and you can see that it addresses it from all sides and is definitely not slanted to support my position. AGAIN I will ALSO NOTE that the very author of the NSA program (Gen Hayden) has been approved to head the CIA by a wide margin. This alone tells the thinking person that maybe much of the Democrats resistance to the program has been squelched by additional information provided to them. Would you think that maybe they have decided it was fully legal and needed, but just not publicly announced the about face???? Wouldn't you say that their votes indicate that and their current silence on the issue supports my theory????

A Washington Post/ABC News poll finds widespread support for the NSA's phone data collection program:
A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.
From the poll, it sounds like many Americans have considered the tradeoff and are willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt:
Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." Three in 10--31 percent--said it was more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.

Half--51 percent--approved of the way President Bush was handling privacy matters.
Several things about this poll:
This is an initial poll, so as in the case of President George Bush's polling numbers the key is going to be to see what kind of trend a variety of polls shows.

The Washington Post/ABC poll is not a fly-by-night poll so it is significant.

Polls are like see-saws and are a snapshot in time. Will these results remain the same if more info (particularly negative) comes out?
And then there is this key point:

We regularly run polls on this site when we see a significant shift or part of a patter on something such as the Iraq war or President George Bush's popularity. And there is a clear trend we've spotted when we do:

--If people (on the left or right) agree with a poll, it's a solid, good poll and is meaningful.
--If they don't agree with it, then they question its methodology, the question asked, or hint that the polling organization or news organization involved is doing the poll with a bias to try and hoodwink the public.
--But the people who question a poll (on the right and the left) will embrace a poll by the same company and news organization when it shows what they like and tout it far and wide.

In fact, if you tout one poll by an organization then it is also significant and presumably credible when you see one you don't agree with.

This poll may suggest that Americans initially have no problems with the NSA program. However, there could be a still be a spillover contributing to this administration's credibility problems — particularly if more damaging information surfaces.

Will more info surface? Information is coming out that was kept from the American public. The hearings for General Michael Hayden for new CIA chief are coming up. Plus other hearings. More details could be forthcoming.

So this poll is likely an accurate first reading (after all WE have cited these same polls before on other issues and there's no reason for us now to suddenly assume they are fraudulent or way off base). What happens as American absorb more information? When other polls come in on this issue it will be easier to determine an actual trend.

The Left Coaster's Steve Soto has a MUST READ POST where he deals with this issue (see his update to readers) of not just the poll but taking the poll seriously. He is not trying to dismiss it but looking at it and analzying it:
In choosing which issues to use against this White House and the GOP in the fall campaign, those of us on the center-left must be prepared for the possibility that the country doesn’t see the NSA data mining and wiretapping programs with the same degree of alarm as we do. A quick ABC News/Washington Post poll done yesterday (with a relatively large margin of error of 4.5 points) found that the public isn’t concerned with having the NSA data mine the nation’s telephone calls, and that by a 2-1 margin, respondents weren’t concerned with the government tracking their calls. In fact, 45% of Democrats and 6 in 10 independents support what they have heard so far.

We can raise red flags all we want on our side of the aisle about the violation of basic freedoms and privacy that are front and center with the Bush Administration’s behavior here. But in this post-9/11 world run by an administration that has manipulated fear to a point that a large number of Americans are scared children who would rather give up some rights in order to be protected from the bad guy under the bed, it appears that the public is fine with intrusive and illegal programs like these until it is shown that Bush did something with this information other than build a database to be used in identifying suspect calling patterns.


The last words in the above are by a far left Democratic strategist and not mine. I don't agree with them, but since I attempt to be fair I am including them also.

Lee

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Bipa

I thought we already had this conversation in another thread. I haven't been paying attention the last few days - has a new poll come out?

No, a new poll has not come out that I know of; however, there definitely appears to be more information on the issue available to our political leaders.

The overwhelming support for confirmation of Gen Hayden, the architect of the NSA program, indicates that something has changed drastically. Do you reckon that closed door sessions convinced naysayers of the validity and probably need for such a program? I definitely think so and the actions indicate that. To me it indicates that 73 percent of the Senate supports it.

Lee