Bush: Eavesdropping Helps Save U.S. Lives By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
41 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Facing angry criticism and challenges to his authority in Congress, President Bush on Saturday unapologetically defended his administration's right to conduct secret post-Sept. 11 spying in the U.S. as "critical to saving American lives."
One Democrat said Bush was acting more like a king than a democratically elected leader.
Bush's willingness to publicly acknowledge some of the government's most classified activities was a stunning development for a president known to dislike disclosure of even the most mundane inner workings of his White House.
Since October 2001, the super-secret National Security Agency has monitored, without court-approved warrants, the international phone calls and e-mails of people inside the United States.
News of the program comes at a particularly damaging and delicate time.
Already, the Bush administration is under fire for allegedly operating secret prisons in Eastern Europe and shipping suspected terrorists to other countries for harsh interrogations.
The NSA program's existence surfaced as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the domestic anti-terrorism law enacted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
In a stinging failure to Bush, Democrats and a few Republicans who say this law gives so much latitude to law enforcement officials that it threatens Americans' constitutional liberties succeeded Friday in stalling its renewal.
FinnMacCool said:Bullshit. This is just a way for Bush to attempt to justify it.
FinnMacCool said:I agree. You cannot beat terrorism. Trying to defeat terrorism is like trying to defeat disease. Overcoming terrorism is the individuals responsible. Its up to the gov't to make us as secure as possible without interfering with our liberties. It is up to us to live our lives as we should. Once the gov't interferes with our liberties, it begins to defeat the purpose of defeating terrorism because, if you cannot live free then why live at all?
Being completely secure is not possible without sacrificing our liberty. People who are so afraid of terrorism that they would do so are being silly. They do not want terrorism any more then they want a totalitarian state. They need to get over the fact that--yes--there is a possiblity, however slight, that we may be attacked and people may die if we do not keep these supposedly "essential" tools against terrorism. Once they get over that fact, they can soon get over the fact that complete security is impossible without sacrificing basic liberties that we all take for granted and allow us to live life as we will. That is what makes us a happy society.
I think the best way to have security is to have freedom. And the blessings of freedom must extend to all nations around the globe. However, the US cannot force freedom down the throats of other nations. It is something that they must choose and earn for themselves. We do need to promote freedom and pressure dictatorships, but we simply cannot force freedom down the throats of the common people of other nations. These common people of other nations need to have a true free voice in their own affairs and when they do have this, it is unlikely that terrorists will be able to prosper in their populations to launch attacks against the US. Nor, by destroying our own freedom in the name of security will it give us the security from the terrorists that these measures are supposed to give us.
It is my belief that the pre-requisite for the survival of the human species is freedom. Without it, the survival of the species comes into doubt. Right now, in this part of human history, we see where the survival of the human species is at stake.
FinnMacCool said:Relying on Bush for other nations freedom is dumb. Bush is one of the most authoritarian presidents we've ever had. If he is providing freedom to Iraqis he's providing it based on his own agenda. And his own agenda is to bring his ideas of a 'free society' to them turning them into a society that would gradually turn backwards. He is going to do the same thing he did in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's president is a business partner of the Bush's and, if Bush provides the same sort of leader for the Iraqis as he did the afghanis then they will not, ulitimately, progress to a greater society.
FinnMacCool said:I agree. You cannot beat terrorism.
FinnMacCool said:Trying to defeat terrorism is like trying to defeat disease.
FinMacCool said:Its up to the gov't to make us as secure as possible without interfering with our liberties. It is up to us to live our lives as we should. Once the gov't interferes with our liberties, it begins to defeat the purpose of defeating terrorism because, if you cannot live free then why live at all?
FinMacCool said:Being completely secure is not possible without sacrificing our liberty. People who are so afraid of terrorism that they would do so are being silly.
FinMacCool said:They do not want terrorism any more then they want a totalitarian state.
FinMacCool said:They need to get over the fact that--yes--there is a possiblity, however slight, that we may be attacked and people may die if we do not keep these supposedly "essential" tools against terrorism. Once they get over that fact, they can soon get over the fact that complete security is impossible without sacrificing basic liberties that we all take for granted and allow us to live life as we will. That is what makes us a happy society.
Because we assume his basis for spying on certain groups and people was so weak that he could not obtain a warrant. They were spying on Quakers... :roll:The Real McCoy said:Spying on Americans isn't the issue as this intelligence has proven to be effective against terrorist plots. The issue is that this spying was conducted without a court issued warrant which are quite easily obtained, easier to get than the standard search warrant.
Not by force.But you can change the factors that cause it.
The idea is to make yourself as protected as possible and then leave it at that[/Quote]Doesn't mean we should stop trying to fight either.
Usually no choice? They have a choice. And the only moral choice is to allow us to keep our liberties. Perhaps you would give up your liberty so easily but I wouldn't.During wartime there is usually no choice but to limit certain liberties for national security purposes. The government's primary responsibility is to protect it's people.
Have you talked to the average family of a september 11th victim? It doesn't matter if they are familys of victims, they still should not sacrifice liberty for security.Tell that to the average family of a September 11th victim.
Your right it is a big leap. I'm looking towards the future. THere is nothing more important then fighting Authoritarianism and abuse of power. Anything that undermines our liberty is taking a step towards totalitarianismCertain civil liberty restrictions = a totalitarian state? That's an enormous leap in logic.
Its not about being compassionate, its about being smart. People die every day, how compassionate are you? Deaths aren't fun but they are apart of life.Eh... we might lose a few thousand innocent people. No biggie. Way to be compassionate.
Quite frankly, I have nothing to hide and could care less if the NSA listens in on my phone calls
FinnMacCool said:Not by force.
FinMacCool said:The idea is to make yourself as protected as possible and then leave it at that
FinMacCool said:Usually no choice? They have a choice. And the only moral choice is to allow us to keep our liberties. Perhaps you would give up your liberty so easily but I wouldn't.
FinMacCool said:Have you talked to the average family of a september 11th victim? It doesn't matter if they are familys of victims, they still should not sacrifice liberty for security.
FinMacCool said:Your right it is a big leap. I'm looking towards the future. THere is nothing more important then fighting Authoritarianism and abuse of power. Anything that undermines our liberty is taking a step towards totalitarianism
FinMacCool said:Its not about being compassionate, its about being smart. People die every day, how compassionate are you? Deaths aren't fun but they are apart of life.
FinMacCool said:Okay if you don't mind being spied on, good for you.
Sometimes, but not if its not your ownSometimes force is needed to change governments.
Thats the problem. You pay too much attention to it and end up reverting to old ways for fear of it. If we are to progress we have to do away with these old ideas of 'intervention'. We cannot keep doing this and expect us to progress. Change in policy is the only way to achieve this.And ignore the growing problem....
Thats only looking at the immediate. If you only go for short term safety instead of long term safety and happiness then whats gonna happen is your going to **** up in the future. That is why we will keep fighting war after war after war because no one has the guts to change things.You're looking at it from one side. What morality is there in allowing a threat within our borders to manifest itself when it could be prevented by curbing certain liberties such as the right to privacy?
And if they're smart and if they have any respect for the dead, they will not sacrifice their liberty for their own security.No, but I've heard them. I've seen them on TV and read their writings and they know what havoc terrorism can wreak.
I am support efforts to prevent needless death but I support it in a different way. If we only look to stop the immediate problems then we're going to lose in the long run. We have to change policy.Of course people die every day but most because of natural causes. I don't know about you but I support efforts to prevent needless death like murder and terrorism.
Its a big deal because it has the potential to infringe on our rights. It might have happened to you already and you don't know about it. Do you want to be spied on, whether you know or don't know about it?I don't see what the big deal is. The 14th amendment (or any amendment in the Constitution) isn't absolute. If civil liberties were absolute we could bear nuclear arms, spew libel and slander, shout bomb on airplanes and other things that are detrimental to society. It's only thing if NSA agents are coming into homes and going through people's stuff, I'd have a BIG problem with that, but listening in on phones isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be.
jfuh said:I think that 9/11 was the greatest blessing that Cheny Inc. could've recieved. Justified for a war in Iraq thus turning all issues away from Bush as a failure and allowing for an easy re-election.
How the hell can you fight terrorism? It's similar to cancer only you never know it's form. Terrorism is an ideology that nearly all historical figures have used to combat an enemy. You identify islamic fundamentalists, christian "crusaders", eco terrorists. Essentially you can classify all ideologies that infringe on your beliefs to be terrorists. ie, War on christmas, christian fundamentalists trying to make something out of nothing just to get attention. Southern whites fearing of being breeded unpure by minorities. Border Militia that fear illegal immigrants taking over thier jobs.
All these "fears" can be classified as a feeling of terror, thus terrorism. Can we just call this war on terrorism what it really is? Anti-islamic fundamentalism, or for that matter, anti-Cheny Inc. Since all citizens within the US are now possible targets of terrorist activities, thus the Patriot Act.
FinnMacCool said:Sometimes, but not if its not your own
FinMacCool said:Thats the problem. You pay too much attention to it and end up reverting to old ways for fear of it.
FinMacCool said:If we are to progress we have to do away with these old ideas of 'intervention'. We cannot keep doing this and expect us to progress. Change in policy is the only way to achieve this.
FinMacCool said:Thats only looking at the immediate. If you only go for short term safety instead of long term safety and happiness then whats gonna happen is your going to **** up in the future. That is why we will keep fighting war after war after war because no one has the guts to change things.
We aren't going to 'win' the 'war on terror' by curbing liberties. We're gonna win by changing policies.
FinMacCool said:And if they're smart and if they have any respect for the dead, they will not sacrifice their liberty for their own security.
FinMacCool said:I am support efforts to prevent needless death but I support it in a different way. If we only look to stop the immediate problems then we're going to lose in the long run. We have to change policy.
FinMacCool said:Its a big deal because it has the potential to infringe on our rights. It might have happened to you already and you don't know about it. Do you want to be spied on, whether you know or don't know about it?
Those things you listed about civil liberties being 'absolute' are all realistically acceptable to be outlawed. However this is different. This doesn't just give powers to search 'potential terrorists'. Anyone could be a potential terorist. I could be a potential terrorist. I don't like the idea of the gov't having the power to spy on me.
This of course solves the problem of all terrorist activities world wide right?:roll:Trajan Octavian Titus said:Here's how you fight terrorism, after a terrorist attack on U.S. soil you turn on the t.v to CNN and the people jumping for joy and burning American flags are the people you kill.
Gitdog said:This has been going on since the 50's, get over it! They can give two craps what you say on the phone.As long as your not having a terrorist meeting on the phone, they dont care what brand of toiletpaper you wipe your dumb a** with.
Japan and Germany: We had a war with them and they lost. We did a good thing by helping them rebuild and forcing them to like usWhat about Japan, Germany, South Korea... Those countries are booming.
I agree. We ignored it because we kept killing innocents and making people mad at us. Like I said, change in policy is the only way to solve this.No... we paid little to no attention to it before 9/11.
Thats why we have to show them we are not fighting a war against them. Invading Iraq and adding fuel to those peoples propaganda is no way to show that we are no tout to hurt the islamic people.You can continue to live in candyland where everything is just peachy and whatever goes on in the Middle East doesn't matter.. or you can face reality and realize that this is a war that must be fought. Contempt for America will continue to brew in Arab countries as long as Authoritarian regimes are in place that oppress their people and blame the West for their woes by bombarding the people with anti-American propoganda through state controlled medias. Then the twist the great religion of Islam to give them hope, they glorify suicidal bombings that kill "infidels" with the promise of escape, instant passage to heaven.
This is what needs to change and cannot be ignored.
We need to keep in mind what George Washington said "Beware of foreign entanglements". We have to stop supporting Israel, withdraw from the middle east, and focus our efforts on our own country. We can leave someone else to do the "world policing".What change in policy do you propose?
Most americans aren't very smart.Are you kidding? Most Americans WOULD sacrifice liberties for security.
Complete security is impossible without sacrificing liberty. People are always going to die. We need to move forward instead of regressing backwords. Thats the only way we can be a truly free and happy society.You seem to think that we can have all these liberties without having security. The 2 are not at odds with each other, security is needed for liberty but you can't seem to grasp that.
What is that the "New Domino Theory"? When one country falls to freedom the rest will fall? I don't believe thats ever going to work. And it definatly will not work if we keep fueling terrorists fire.We're NOT only looking at the immediate problems. If we succeed in Iraq, which I believe we will, then we can leave and allow the seeds of freedom to flourish in the Middle East. THAT is what will help defeat terrorism in the long run.
So if the president had the power to spy on anybody he wanted, you wouldn't have a problem with that?This isn't different. This is another liberty that isn't absolute, the right to privacy. I don't see wiretapping as being out of the question, I have nothing to hide and honestly don't care if the NSA listens in on my conversations but that is where you and I differ and will most likely never come to an agreement so debating it is pointless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?