Bush won't reauthorize eavesdropping

blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
edited January 2007 in A Moving Train
Holy shit this surprises me... But I thought according to them, they didn't need court approval?

I can't comprehend the level of stubbornness it takes to stand up in front of a country and defend something that you know damn well is wrong.


Bush won't reauthorize eavesdropping

21 minutes ago

President George W. Bush has decided not to reauthorize the controversial domestic warrantless surveillance program for terrorism suspects and to put it under the authority of a secret special court, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Wednesday.

"The president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," Gonzales wrote in a letter to Senate leaders.

"Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Gonzales said.

The program, adopted after the September 11 attacks, allowed the government to eavesdrop on the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without obtaining a warrant, if those wiretaps are made to track suspected al Qaeda operatives.

Critics have said the program violated the U.S. Constitution and a 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which made it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without the approval of the special court.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070117/ts_nm/surveillance_bush_dc_3
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I wonder if anyone here will applaud Bush for this?
  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I wonder if anyone here will applaud Bush for this?

    For what? Realizing his is pissing all over the Constitution? OK. Thanks George for realizing you aren't a monarch sent by god.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    cutback wrote:
    For what?


    see original post
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I wonder if anyone here will applaud Bush for this?
    If a man sticks you with a needle, do you applaud him when he gives you a band-aid afterwards?

    That said, I agree with him on this one. Interesting that he had to reverse a position I strongly disagreed in order for that to happen, though.
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    I wonder if anyone here will applaud Bush for this?


    I'm giving him a kinda stunned, suspicious and cautious golf clap right now...

    I'm happy about this by all means, but I am waiting for the other shoe to drop, like Bush appointing all Gonzalez clones to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    RainDog wrote:
    If a man sticks you with a needle, do you applaud him when he gives you a band-aid afterwards?

    That said, I agree with him on this one. Interesting that he had to reverse a position I strongly disagreed first.

    getting warmer
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    jlew24asu wrote:
    getting warmer
    Fire around here? I don't smell smoke.
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    I applaud Bush for this.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    zstillings wrote:
    I applaud Bush for this.
    It hurt to say that didnt it
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    zstillings wrote:
    I applaud Bush for this.

    I will cautiously applaud Bush for this one
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    jlew24asu wrote:
    It hurt to say that didnt it

    Not so much. I like this decision. I don't blame Bush for the eruption of Mount Vesuvius almost 2000 years ago either like some here would.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    zstillings wrote:
    I applaud Bush for this.
    To be fair, I don't think you were jlew24asu's target audience when he asked that question.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    RainDog wrote:
    To be fair, I don't think you were jlew24asu's target audience when he asked that question.

    probably not. you are though. personally I do not like Bush's decision. I want our government to be eves dropping on all suspected terrorists.
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    RainDog wrote:
    To be fair, I don't think you were jlew24asu's target audience when he asked that question.

    I just figured I would start the ball rolling on the approval of one decision. I like to be somewhat positive where it is needed around a board that, for the most part, would criticize him as the worst President ever for his choice of cereal in the morning.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    jlew24asu wrote:
    probably not. you are though. personally I do not like Bush's decision. I want our government to be eves dropping on all suspected terrorists.
    See, I don't have a problem with that provided it's done with warrants and oversight. Otherwise, the definition of terrorist is determined by one man - regardless of what his mood is that day.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    RainDog wrote:
    See, I don't have a problem with that provided it's done with warrants and oversight.
    yea, im ok with that too
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    jlew24asu wrote:
    probably not. you are though. personally I do not like Bush's decision. I want our government to be eves dropping on all suspected terrorists.

    I agree with you about the suspected terrorists. I have always been uncomfortable with the precedent that this sets for the government though.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    zstillings wrote:
    I just figured I would start the ball rolling on the approval of one decision. I like to be somewhat positive where it is needed around a board that, for the most part, would criticize him as the worst President ever for his choice of cereal in the morning.
    Better be Cheerios or Grape Nuts. Anything else is just showboating.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    jlew24asu wrote:
    yea, im ok with that too
    But you just said you didn't like Bush's decision? That's pretty much what Bush's decision was this time - him saying "all right. I'll go through the warrant process from here on out."
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    zstillings wrote:
    Not so much. I like this decision. I don't blame Bush for the eruption of Mount Vesuvius almost 2000 years ago either like some here would.

    Not so much the fault of Bush as it was the Roman gods' dislike for his stance on gay marriage.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    RainDog wrote:
    But you just said you didn't like Bush's decision? That's pretty much what Bush's decision was this time - him saying "all right. I'll go through the warrant process from here on out."

    as long as terrorists are being listened to, I dont care how its done
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    jlew24asu wrote:
    as long as terrorists are being listened to, I dont care how its done
    Cool. I do care how it's done, though, because all I want him listening to are terrorists.
  • RainDog wrote:
    If a man sticks you with a needle, do you applaud him when he gives you a band-aid afterwards?

    That said, I agree with him on this one. Interesting that he had to reverse a position I strongly disagreed in order for that to happen, though.

    How many people do you know that had been 'stuck with a needle' from warrantless wiretaps of suspected terrorists? I don't know any, and I honestly don't remember hearing anyone complain about the program, while it was in place, interferring with their lives.

    What negative affect did it have on people? Real people and real examples please, because I haven't heard of any.

    As long as the gov't is able to track and eliminate terrorists planning attacks in our counrty the same with warrants needed as without, then I don't have a problem. But if beaucracy and the so called 'civil rights of terrorists' gets in the way of preventing an attack, then this is a big mistake.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    RainDog wrote:
    Cool. I do care how it's done, though, because all I want him listening to are terrorists.
    great we agree, go bother someone else already ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.