Comments on: Bush Asks Congress To Expand Surveillance

Seeks To "Modernize" Wiretapping To Match New Technologies; Critics Warn Of Unchecked Privacy Invasion

[sjc_1]

The old phrase is, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. I wonder how Republicans would like having their phones tapped and email examined...no that will never happen. Without oversight, it will only be political enemies that get that kind of "surveillance"

[muzzlebush]

Having already proven that they have no regard for the Constitution or the personal freedoms it guarantees, I'm sure that this administration sees the reworking of FISA as the ultimate opportunity to expand its domestic surveilance program.
Given the recent historical character of George and his handlers, it's probably a very short leap from expanding FISA to replaying Watergate.

[michellem99-2009]

One man wants to control every body. It is wrong and the fools that voted him in what were you thinging. He is a 2 face. For you who don't what that is...Learn...IS A PERSON WHO SAIDS ONE THING AND DOES ANOTHER...I can see right thru him and his kind. WAKE UP..DEARS..HE HATES THE CONSTUTION AND THE PEOPLE. that greed and his brotherhood, oh yes. he loves.

[abbe91]

Republicans say "well, if you're good little boys and girls, it shouldn't matter that you're being spied upon. If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of."
Posted by acxeptddty at 11:31 AM : Jul 29, 2007

Couldn't have said it better. On the other hand, if Rove, Myers, etc ... are good little boys and girls, they wouldn't have anything to hide to congress and
should answer congress questions under oath ...
what about that ?

[zootallures2]

If you wanna monitor, you pay for my computer, my internet service, and cell phone. Even a criminal gets a free ankle bracelet.

You are a bunch of morons!

[zootallures2]

Surveillance...lol! No one likes wearing a criminal monitoring ankle bracelet when they commited a crime. So, if you corporate ********** think innocent people should not only wear one but pay for it in the form of cell phones and computers, you are dreaming. People had fun before radio was invented. They'll take the junk and shove it up your arse. You think my monitor has better graphics than the out doors? Your system is getting less productive than living like cavemen.

[acxeptddty]

Republicans say "well, if you're good little boys and girls, it shouldn't matter that you're being spied upon. If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of."

My contract with my government includes my constitutional right not to become an object of scrutiny without the involvement of a neutral gatekeeper to decide if there is sufficient cause.

To paraphrase a favorite quote, my most cherished right is the right to be left the hell alone. If it's not yours, I pity you.

We should all have the backbone to defend such rights, and not roll over like mindless sheep, allowing those rights to be fleeced and sheared from our backs without objection.

It strikes me as repugnant that Republicans toot the horn that government must stay out of our business and economic lives, but will invite if not demand that government intrude upon personal lives, personal morality, and personal choice.

Suppose a new law authorized government access to your financial records; each time you would cheat on your taxes, dear Republican, the government would know almost before you do. Probably wouldn't like that much, would you?

Whether we abide by the law or seek to break it in dark, secret corners is not the issue. The fourth amendment was writtten in shed blood that flowed the same way then as it does now. I would expect more reverence for such rights from people who preach to me how we must stay the course in our defense of the "young democracy" in Iraq.

[acxeptddty]

Republicans say "well, if you're good little boys and girls, it shouldn't matter that you're being spied upon. If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of."

My contract with my government includes my constitutional right not to become an object of scrutiny without the involvement of a neutral gatekeeper to decide if there is sufficient cause.

To paraphrase a favorite quote, my most cherished right is the right to be left the hell alone. If it's not yours, I pity you.

We should all have the backbone to defend such rights, and not roll over like mindless sheep, allowing those rights to be fleeced and sheared from our backs without objection.

It strikes me as repugnant that Republicans toot the horn that government must stay out of our business and economic lives, but will invite if not demand that government intrude upon personal lives, personal morality, and personal choice.

Suppose a new law authorized government access to your financial records; each time you would cheat on your taxes, dear Republican, the government would know almost before you do. Probably wouldn't like that much, would you?

Whether we abide by the law or seek to break it in dark, secret corners is not the issue. The fourth amendment was writtten in shed blood that flowed the same way then as it does now. I would expect more reverence for such rights from people who preach to me how we must stay the course in our defense of the "young democracy" in Iraq.

[omega39-2009]

So what would be the reason not to ask for a warrant. I can't imagine any good one. You seem to assume that wiretapping can only be used for the noble reason of fighting terrorism. We both can remember of examples where wiretapping occurred for other reasons. Watergate is a good one.
Posted by abbe91

Another example is before the war when they were trying to get the UN to do a second vote explicitly authorizing military action in Iraq. It came out later that member nations at the UN found their offices bugged.

[creeper00]

In the face of a national scandal over existing wiretapping practices this idiot wants even more authority.

Talk about balls.

[coffeehead-2009]

I honestly fail to see how my freedom is lost because of wiretapping.

xxxx
Your job,home- family etc....
potential to demolish any single american's future with lies and misrepresentation. Just BEING a target will mark you with a big red X and cost you every penny you've earned. Corrupt liars will not be above ANYTHING.


First, historically, the executive branch has repeatedly used vague claims of %u201Cnational security%u201D to justify the sabotage of its political rivals.

Second, without a neutral decision maker keeping tabs on wiretaps, physical searches and other invasions of privacy, overeager agents push the limits. In the Cold War, we saw legitimate concerns about Soviet espionage morph into a wholesale snoop campaign into the lives of activists and intellectuals who had nothing whatsoever to do with national security.

And third, because of that tendency to overreach, judicial supervision actually enhances national security by focusing limited investigative resources on real threats. The New York Times reported just this weekend that the NSA surveillance flooded the FBI with thousands and thousands of useless tips. According to the story, it got so bad that agents said they were spending time essentially pursuing a lot of %u201Ccalls to Pizza Hut.%u201D

In the 20th century alone, the United States has seen probably half a dozen major scandals involving warrantless surveillance under the false banner of %u201Cnational security.%u201D

[abbe91]

"That still doesn't address the question abbe. The question was "how does wiretapping strip freedom?"
Posted by NavyRetired2 at 09:27 AM : Jul 29, 2007"

You are welcome ...
My point is ... if the wiretapping is legal, there is no reason not to follow the law and ask for a warrant. As sjc says, they have more than 72 hours to notify the FISA court in times of urgency.
So what would be the reason not to ask for a warrant. I can't imagine any good one. You seem to assume that wiretapping can only be used for the noble reason of fighting terrorism. We both can remember of examples where wiretapping occurred for other reasons. Watergate is a good one.
You were mentioning monitoring on the workplace in a government classified space and I fully agree with you. I would say that monitoring, recording makes much sense also when the people monitored have public duties. On this aspect, and I'm talking about the disappeared e-mails of Rove et al, this administration is showing a very bad example.
But here, it's about every citizen we are talking about. Do you want a file kept on you about every aspect of your private life, what you think about the current administration, for example ? Would you agree that the contents of this file could be used when you apply for a job ? or to decide whether your name should be purged from voter lists by a private company ?

[coffeehead-2009]

They have more than 72 hours to notify the FISA court in times of urgency. The original law took this into account. Bush violated the law thousands of times because he could and no one could stop him. That is the kind of blind arrogance that this little insane monkey has.
Posted by sjc_1 at 09:29 AM : Jul 29, 2007

~~~~~~~~

He took care of any violations or controls.
He TRULY is a self-ordained dictator. Did you know that Merkle recently referred to him and cliton as "rulers"? Honestly, the entire E.U. knows what's happening here - it's the citizens of the u.s. that are blinded.


Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency

Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility %u201Cfor ensuring constitutional government.%u201D

He laid this all out in a document entitled "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20."

The White House released it on May 9.

http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807

[sjc_1]

They have more than 72 hours to notify the FISA court in times of urgency. The original law took this into account. Bush violated the law thousands of times because he could and no one could stop him. That is the kind of blind arrogance that this little insane monkey has.

[navyretired2]

"Posted by abbe91 at 09:20 AM : Jul 29, 2007"

That still doesn't address the question abbe. The question was "how does wiretapping strip freedom?" Are we not able to do what we want as law abiding citizens even with surveillance going on? I honestly fail to see how my freedom is lost because of wiretapping. If in fact this freedom IS gone because of it, I'd like to know how. I'm not trying to be combative, just trying to understand that side of the argument.

[abbe91]

"Call me naive, but I honestly cannot see how more surveillance and wiretapping is "stripping our freedom." Has nothing to do with who is in the white house at the moment, eventhough he's managed to completely ignore the constitution on several issues, I'm talking about the basic principle of it. How is increased wiretapping killing freedom?
Posted by NavyRetired2 at 09:03 AM : Jul 29, 2007"

Then ask yourself the question : why did this surveillance have to be done without a warrant ? No warrant before doing it and we probably agree that urgency might be a reason, but also no warrant after the facts as the law foresees ?
What were the reasons no judge should know about the reasons of the wiretapping if it was legal ?

If there are good reasons for wiretapping, I don't see why the law shouldn't be followed and no warrant issued.

[iceman_1960]

"It takes an enormous amount of hubris to ask for more power on the heels of revelations that the President tried to go around his own attorney general on his NSA domestic electronic eavesdropping program," Frederickson said."

That's Bush in a nutshell. Hubris.

The hubris of the spoiled rich son of a former president, the hubris of a man who feels the world owes him deference, luxury, wealth, power and preferment.

That's Bush in a nutshell.

[abbe91]

"Call me naive, but I honestly cannot see how more surveillance and wiretapping is "stripping our freedom." Has nothing to do with who is in the white house at the moment, eventhough he's managed to completely ignore the constitution on several issues, I'm talking about the basic principle of it. How is increased wiretapping killing freedom?
Posted by NavyRetired2 at 09:03 AM : Jul 29, 2007"

Then ask yourself the question : why did this surveillance have to be done without a warrant ? No warrant before doing it and we probably agree that urgency might be a reason, but also no warrant after the facts as the law foresees ?
What were the reasons no judge should know about the reasons of the wiretapping if it was legal ?

If there are good reasons for wiretapping, I don't see why the law shouldn't be followed an a warrant issued.

[iceman_1960]

"This law is badly out-of-date," Mr. Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address."

No, it's the whole Bush presidency that is badly out-of-date.

January 2009 can't come soon enough.

[omega39-2009]

"Bush Asks Congress To Expand Surveillance"

They can start with Bush and Cheney and work their way down from there.