"It seems the Bush administration -- being a group of sane, informed adults -- has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.

During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his associates, the government seized computers, cell phones and personal phone books. Soon after the raids, the National Security Agency began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone numbers found in al Qaeda Rolodexes.

That was true even if you were "an American citizen" making the call from U.S. territory -- like convicted al Qaeda associate Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be spying on people like Faris, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you."

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=11286&o=ANN001

Iyman Faris ?

4 years of illegal wiretaps and they found ONE criminal super-genius :rolleyes: who plotted to 'take-down' the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch ! LOL

At this rate, by 2009 they will find some guy plotting to take-down the Washington Monument with a hammer and chisel.

Yes, excellent way of ignoring the crux of the argument. There is nary a single voice of dissent when it comes to the idea of the government spying on suspected terrorism suspects. Its the way that its done that is found suspect. And don't even give me that Democrat crap, you're like a stupid broken record with it. There were immediately a good number of Republicans who spoke out against the EO Bush ordered right alongside the Democrats.

The bug up your ass has drowned-out whatever point you were trying to make here.

has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants

They tap suspected terrorists, and not necessarily muslim.

I'd have thought that'd be obvious

I'm not convinced that spying on everyone for the sake of a few bad apples is an intelligent goal.

We're not talking about spying on everyone and sifting through the information to pick out the terrorists. We're talking about people previously suspected of being terrorists tracked and watched to make sure they don't try anything untowards. This isn't a big brother issue, this is an issue of Bush making an end-run around the program that was specifically put into place to handle situations like this. Admittedly it might be dated, but instead of dancing around it he should have tried to fix it. He's used the terrorism angle as an excuse to create one of the largest government bureaucracies ever seen, but when it comes to providing real intelligent solutions doesn't see fit to fixing real problems.

I'm not convinced that spying on everyone for the sake of a few bad apples is an intelligent goal.

nor am I ... does anyone think the surveillance-state will go away if / when the threat subsides ?

No, because a new threat will arise. Remember, all of this technology and infrastructure to spy on people was in place not to fight terrorism originally, but to fight communism during the Cold War. Its human nature to need enemies, and once we find the next one we'll be worried that he's here then too, and we'll spy on our own citizens to protect our physical selves once again.

Do you really think we live in a surveillance state when compared to other places, such as Britain? I think that our constitution does an amazing job of PREVENTING this nation from turning into a surveillance-state. I mean, I almost laughed when there was that entire little constitutional crisis over red-light cameras, but because we have groups like the ACLU to bring attention to situations, I think that we're not too bad off.

"War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist."

- George Orwell, "1984"

When this fiction starts getting mirrored in reality, I get worried.

When this fiction starts getting mirrored in reality, I get worried.

Yes, because there is no reason for the war on terror. Terrorism doesn't exist. 9-11 didn't happen. :|

Yes, because there is no reason for the war on terror. Terrorism doesn't exist. 9-11 didn't happen. :|

Nobody is saying that.

What we're saying is that we should not sacrifice our core values and beliefs. This is a war of ideology, not body bags. Even if we fill more body bags, if we do it at the expense of our ideology, we lose.

Yes, because there is no reason for the war on terror. Terrorism doesn't exist. 9-11 didn't happen. :|

If you decide to comment on things I actually said, let me know.

No, because a new threat will arise. Remember, all of this technology and infrastructure to spy on people was in place not to fight terrorism originally, but to fight communism during the Cold War. Its human nature to need enemies, and once we find the next one we'll be worried that he's here then too, and we'll spy on our own citizens to protect our physical selves once again.

Do you really think we live in a surveillance state when compared to other places, such as Britain? I think that our constitution does an amazing job of PREVENTING this nation from turning into a surveillance-state. I mean, I almost laughed when there was that entire little constitutional crisis over red-light cameras, but because we have groups like the ACLU to bring attention to situations, I think that we're not too bad off.

There are places MUCH worse off then the US when it comes to this, Singapore comes to mind, but a we take our liberties very very seriously and once a bit of freedom or privacy is chipped away, it is gone. This slow erosion of liberty is insidious. It is lost in the name of security or it's kissin' cousin law enforcement and is lost progressively ... In a few generations the public might be totally used-to GPS and RFID implants and a central know-all database.

There are places MUCH worse off then the US when it comes to this, Singapore comes to mind, but a we take our liberties very very seriously and once a bit of freedom or privacy is chipped away, it is gone. This slow erosion of liberty is insidious. It is lost in the name of security or it's kissin' cousin law enforcement and is lost progressively ... In a few generations the public might be totally used-to GPS and RFID implants and a central know-all database.


Yes, it's very troubling that so many people are willing to wave the white flag for Osama and do away with our liberties and traditions out of fear..

once again, we're arguing the same left-right garbage like rats in a maze.

here's a question: Does social security work? Can it work? If not, who asked for it?

Iyman Faris ?

4 years of illegal wiretaps and they found ONE criminal super-genius :rolleyes: who plotted to 'take-down' the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch ! LOL

At this rate, by 2009 they will find some guy plotting to take-down the Washington Monument with a hammer and chisel.

Had the bridge been blown up, the administration would have been accused of knowing about it, yet doing nothing, just like 911. This President can do no right in the minds of many, so he might as well do what he feels is right, and let history judge him later. My guess is that he'll be judged well; not great, but decisive and active on foriegn policy issues.

Had the previous administration been as dilligent, we may never have been attacked in the first place. They "knew" as well, but the liberals didn't seem to care when their guy was in control. There were direct attacks on our armed personell, yet they were treated as criminal issues, and unidictable, due to a lack of actionable intelligence.

In my opinion, a gaping hole blown into an American warship is an act of war, and should be treated as such. Not to mention attacks on our embassies, which are considered soverign U.S. territory. It's too bad the last President was too busy banging young interns instead of hunting down and killing our enemies.

Had the bridge been blown up, the administration would have been accused of knowing about it, yet doing nothing, just like 911. This President can do no right in the minds of many, so he might as well do what he feels is right, and let history judge him later. My guess is that he'll be judged well; not great, but decisive and active on foriegn policy issues.

Had the previous administration been as dilligent, we may never have been attacked in the first place. They "knew" as well, but the liberals didn't seem to care when their guy was in control. There were direct attacks on our armed personell, yet they were treated as criminal issues, and unidictable, due to a lack of actionable intelligence.

In my opinion, a gaping hole blown into an American warship is an act of war, and should be treated as such. Not to mention attacks on our embassies, which are considered soverign U.S. territory. It's too bad the last President was too busy banging young interns instead of hunting down and killing our enemies.


How about giving us some facts instead of right wing talking points? Reagan didn't do anything when 380 something Marines wre blown up on his watch, are you sure you have any idea what "liberals" think?

Why would it have been so difficult to obey the law and obtain warrants in a closed court room for the purposes of tapping these people's calls?

Surely the case could have been made to back up the claim that such tapping was needed. Or was the case really, really weak?

Why would it have been so difficult to obey the law and obtain warrants in a closed court room for the purposes of tapping these people's calls?

Surely the case could have been made to back up the claim that such tapping was needed. Or was the case really, really weak?


Some people think it might be because they were tapping Democrats or anti-war activists, and no jusge would approve that, hence them doing it illegally. They had to be up to something considering there was no reason to break the law. And we all remember how they spied on the UN prior to the war, their track record shows they have little concern for stopping actual terrorism, and only care to forward their radical agenda.

How about giving us some facts instead of right wing talking points? Reagan didn't do anything when 380 something Marines wre blown up on his watch, are you sure you have any idea what "liberals" think?

Did I mention the Marines??? I don't think so, but I'll bite. I didn't think we should have pulled out at that point, and the planners at the Pentagon (and the public) were still so phobic over Viet Nam at that time in our history, they wouldn't even allow the marines to LOAD their weapons. If they had, that tragedy could have been avoided. The terrorists were underestimated then, and right on up until 911. That event fianlly got then point across that these people meant business.

I know that you believe the attack was an inside job, buit I'm not even going there. I will say that I don't agree with you on that point, despite the supposed "evidence" that it was. I've raedd it all a long time ago, and more recently, and I don't buy it for many obvious reasons. I'll leave it at that.

I don't write talking points. I write exactly what I think and believe, and what years of watching politicians shown me to be true. I don't fully trust any of them, especially left wingers.

Leftists consistently want to take more money in taxes, demonize anyone who's actually been successful financially, (which is hypocritical, because they ARE "the rich" and live like kings and queens themselves) cut the military, and implement the latest social engineering ideas. That's why daddy's little girls are now coming home in body bags, when they shouldn't have been in combat in the first place. In previous wars, it would have been unthinkable, because we didn't feel that it was necessary for women to lay down their lives. We actually wanted to protect them. We can thank the feminist movement for women in combat, which is totally aligned with the left, and must lie constantly in order to keep itself going and gain new recruits.

The feminist movement also promotes their holy sacrament of abortion zealously, which is sold on lies consistently. If people actually SAW what really happens on a regular basis, we would cut the number drmatically, but we hide what it really looks like, because that would upset too many people, and expose a littany of lies. We cry about not finding a cure for AIDS and other diseases. Maybe we've already killed the person who was going to find it through abortion, it's possible, but we'll never know.

They say we need it for rape and incest victims, when the truth is (and they know it), it's used for simple birth control in over 97% of the cases. They never mention, or WARN people the trauma and guilt associated with it after the fact to both mothers, and fathers. It's the exploitation of women to advance a radical, political agenda. Ask any woman who's had an abortion if they feel good about it, and I would bet you won't find one in a hundred.

As for knowing liberals; I was raised by the two most die hard, bleeding heart liberals I have ever met, and I've met plenty more, so I have a pretty good idea about their very, very well intentioned, yet unrealistic, misguided views that look dandy on paper, but just don't pan out in the real world, primarilly because of human nature, and the propensity of people to exploit whatever program is available, and rationalize it by telling themselves the 'rich" are footing the bill. After all, that's what the libs have been telling them all along.

I actually had a liberal election officer get mad at me for daring to register as a Republican, because where I come from, almost everyone else is a liberal democrat. But, liberals like to dictate to people how they should think and behave. After all, they know much better how to handle my money, my kids, and anything else I manage to get my hands on.

My Dad built a stage for Lyndon Johnson and got to meet him when I was kid. He thought that was the greatest thing in the world. He built barracks for soldiers during all of WWII at Fort Meade, and a few other bases while his older brothers went to Europe to fight. He loved FDR, Harry truman, Jonson, Carter and Clinton. He was the biggest liberal I ever knew.

My Dad beleived in Social Security with all his heart, worked hard for 50 plus years, and retired almost broke. Had he taken a second mortgage at some point, he would have ended up homeless, even though he had a pension too. When he calculated how much he had dumped into that program, I believe it finally registered. The majority of American retirees are suffering the same fate, but that's not mentioned too often by the media, or politicians.

So many have been brainwashed by the left into thinking that accumulating money somehow makes a person "greedy", when money is a necessity in order to live. Yet liberals always bash "the rich" when they're in campaign mode, because it appeals to a huge block of their voters. Taxing successful people more does absolutely NOTHING to help poor people. The poor aren't paying federal taxes to begin with. It only increases spending.

Liberals are hypocritical in the sense that they NEED a perpetual underclass in order to retain power, and have no intention of ever letting that disappear. When they say they want to help the poor, it's a lie, and they are in fact, constantly promoting an ever growing number of people dependent on government checks, and in effect, creating more consituents.

Those checks are never enough to live a decent life, yet the disincentive to get out of the programs are built into them. If father lives in the home with dependent kids; no check. If the recipient get a job, they can earn about 200 bucks a week and no more or...no check, and no free health care. This fuels the underground economy, drug dealing, and a whole host of other things which harm society as a whole.

We're actually paying people to make babies and be unproductive in the name of compassion, yet what we're doing is exploiting the misfortune of the very people we claim to be trying to help. If you don't believe me, I'll take you to Baltimore city and introduce you to some of these people. It's tragic.

In theory, these 'benefits" are supposed to be a helping hand through tough times, which I completely support with all of my heart. I've been there. But in reality, it becomes a generational problem when left unchecked. If anyone dares to even suggest cutting even the rate of growth of these programs, they're labeled as racists, and haters of the less fortunate. If there were strict limits and auditing done to these programs, we actually could help people to take a step up, but the system isn't designed that way.

The war on poverty has failed. We've spent several trillion dollars on it since the Johnson administration, and the problem is worse, and growing. Over 65% of black children are born out of wedlock at this point. If fathers were actually allowed into the picture, then maybe more would marry, and at least have a shot at trying to give these kids a more stable life.

Unfortunately, feminism states that fathers aren't necessary to raise children. I guess they think it's better for these boys to band with one another like packs of wolves for male comraderie and influence. The whole thing is criminal, and is doing an ireparible amount of damage.

OK, there's a few facts, and I have many more. If you think we should continue what we've been doing, even though it's failing miserably, that's your perogative. I believe we can do better; much better.

Some people think it might be because they were tapping Democrats or anti-war activists, and no jusge would approve that, hence them doing it illegally. They had to be up to something considering there was no reason to break the law. And we all remember how they spied on the UN prior to the war, their track record shows they have little concern for stopping actual terrorism, and only care to forward their radical agenda.

Well that's sort of the point I guess. If the BA wanted to spy only on terrorists and had a case to back up their desire to do so, obtaining a warrant would have been, to paraphrase George Tenet, a "slam dunk." If, however, they wanted taps on calls that no law would otherwise allow, if their case was so weak that they'd have no hope of convincing a judge, then they've probably broken the law.

The right is so wont to jump all over judges or "legislating from the bench" but this is at least, if not more insidous: a tyrannical executive branch operating literally above the law, ignoring the checks and balances built into the system. Interestingly, and tellingly, the right seems to invoke separation of powers when it suits them such as whenever they're asked about BA recalcitrance to testify before various committees and investigations. However, now that it appears the executive has unilaterally assumed the role of judicial branch in a clear violation of SOP, they're silent and even defending the development.