Petros, you are a beacon of ignorance.
From a report released today by the associated press:
Quote:
The program through the nation's largest spy agency is designed in part to fix problems revealed by the 2001 attacks, in which it came to be learned that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas
It is not really illegal for the president to sign an executive order to eavesdrop on calls transmitting between the U.S. and other countries, especially if he notifies congress. I'm sure you didn't hear that (or a spun version of it) thanks to an extremely bias report you most likely were subjected to.
Something else you probably didn't hear about; The New York times story (more on them below along with the Washington Post and their
extremely illegal CIA leak source and activities) indicated that most of this eavesdropping occurred only months (Bush may have indicated differently and that he has continued doing it, I'm not sure) after the 9/11 attacks. Either way, the process of obtaining a warrant from the secret court is extremely slow and plagued with bureaucracy. It can take months to receive a warrant via this process, and quite frankly detouring around that may have been within the best security interest of a country that had recently sustained an unimaginable attack.
Ironically, the 9/11 commission heavily criticized the government's inability to monitor these types of communications after they uncovered the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were making international calls which could have foiled their plot had it been caught in time. The funny thing that is equally ironic though, is that a warrant could not have been issued to monitor the 9/11 hijackers through this legal avenue anyway, because they probably couldn't provide probable cause which would have been necessary.
I guess this is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. The biggest difference is if you "do" 3,000 people don't die. Amazing how you are basically punished by being smeared for making the right decisions in politics nowdays. This shit would have never happened during the FDR days.
Now
if Bush did in fact sign an order to spy on Americans talking to other Americans within the United States of America, it is definitely illegal and a clear violation of constitutional powers. If this was indeed the case, the burden of proof is on Bush and he needs to make it clear this action was taken with nothing but the best interest of protecting the nation while simultaneously remaining conscience of the people's civil liberties.
If the eavesdropping
was illegal and partisan hacks want to go after Bush because of it, about half of Congress should be held liable as well, since they were practically in on the operation, or at the very least fully aware of it, right alongside Bush. This includes some very liberal Democrat senators (people who think like
you) such as Jay Rockefeller for example.
Quote:
hey zunic i heard W admitted that they never had facts for mass weapons from iraq
Where did he say this? I haven't seen it. I mean, I always knew you liked to put things
in your ass, but never knew you were quite so capable of pulling things
out of your ass, which is clearly where this came from.
Quote:
spy inside the US,phone calls,e mails,and even breaking and searching houses without permission
Again, stick to putting things in your ass. Bush never said anything about invading houses and I have yet to see any reports of officials entering people's houses without proper warrants. If that had ever happened it would have created a massive-scale media shitstorm, because everyone knows not a single damn person has the right to invade a private residence without a warrant issued from a judge/court.
Quote:
of course he used the magic words "11/9" and "national security"
11/9? What happened on November 9th? National security is the job of the legislative and executive branch of the federal government.
Notice how this and the "secret prison" story conveniently came out within a couple weeks or so after the latest poll numbers which have shown Bush to be on the upswing in popularity? I'm not much into conspiracy theories and the like, but could it possibly be conceivable that this was a well timed news plant? Let me tell you something; The Central Intelligence Agency has a filthy dirty little disease infected rat running around amongst its ranks, and that little rat needs to be snuffed out and prosecuted immediately. How do you think the NY Times got this story along with every other classified story they have published recently? Do you think they routed out top secret information with incredibly good investigative journalism? Perhaps, just maybe by some whim of a slight possibility,
someone in the CIA is being paid off to leak classified information that pertains to national security by at least two different news organizations (NY Times and Washington Post).
The irony of this whole report is that the New York Times committed an equal to or greater infraction of the law by exposing and publishing classified intelligence gathering methods that they deem is illegal activity on the president's behalf. Committing a crime to supposedly expose a crime? That's actually quite a new and interesting concept.
Liberals cry out and demand justice when the completely insignificant Vallerie Plame, a desk worker at the CIA is outed. But when intelligence secrets that jeopardize national security and the safety of every American citizen are "outed," everything couldn't be more fine and dandy so long as it plays to their advantage and makes Bush look bad.
The U.S. will be hit with terrorism again. It's not a matter of if - it's a matter of when. And when that time comes, if the investigation afterwards shows us that an easily monitored phone conversation could have thwarted the entire attack, just like it could have with a couple of the hijackers on 9/11; There's going to be hell to pay to those that have made it their duty to expose these types of stories in order to simply diminish the president's popularity and to pander to their political counterparts in Washington D.C. that desperately want their power back.
It wouldn't surprise me if Alberto Gonzales expanded Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation to probe whoever in the CIA is leaking this information. Failing to do so would actually be criminally negligent on Gonzales' part, so I certainly hope at the very least he would act on this in some way.
Login
FAQ
, I could stray away from this "spammer" impression you've handily labeled me as.
