Bush Reveals Al-Qaeda Plot.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Link.
George Bush reveals an al-Qaeda plot to fly a plne into Library Tower, LA, in 2002.

[Insidious Rex]

Im guessing they are implying (but refusing to say) that it was unwarrented domestic spying that foiled this attack right?

[The last sane person]

Funny...great timing, right when his poll numbers dropped. I am probably betting alongside IR.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Im guessing they are implying (but refusing to say) that it was unwarrented domestic spying that foiled this attack right?

I don't think that Bush has made that claim. Though it does seem to make logical sense that greater spying access will increase our ability to counter terrorism. The question is how much access is too much. The Patriot Act also has been used to foil terrorism attempts. I think I heard that it was used to disrupt several terrorist cells. Back when I was researching the Patriot Act to present a speech on it for college . . .

I'm very grateful that President Bush's policies have successfully warded off terror from our shores for all this time. I know more terrorist attacks are going to get through eventually, but this defense against terror is wonderful for our nation.

[hectorberlioz]

It would be very ironic if Bush lost his NSA program to the dems, and then we had an attack. Guess who'd be reelected AGAIN!

The timing is fishy, but still.

A lot of liberal columnists keep harping on about how illegal the spying program is, though really the only thing they can seem to boil down to is how much they hate Bush. If the special courts had approved it, it would be the same thing it is now. OK, so it's illegal. What now? Will we special court it, and put it back to work? Or ditch it?
Bush doesn't want to hear the conversations you have with your girlfriend about football, and other things...I'm sure the whole thing is a much lesser deal than we make it out to be.
I've got nothing to hide.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It is would be very ironic is Bush lost his NSA program to the dems, and then we had an attack. Guess who'd be reelected AGAIN!

If we get a liberal Democratic president who tries to ensure the freedoms of our country more by removing the Patriot Act, pulling out of Iraq and cancelling many of Bush's anti-terror programs, I am certain there would be terrible bloodshed in our land as a consequence.

[Rían]

two (rather OT) comments -

I figured they'd be aiming in LA's direction sometime soon ...

(on the bright side - maybe they'll hit Hollywood! )

and ...

I just love Arabic script!


and an interesting thought - was it "unwarranted" if it stopped a terrorist attack? Illegal is another question, of course.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I figured they'd be aiming in LA's direction sometime soon ...

(on the bright side - maybe they'll hit Hollywood! )

Lol.

[Bombadillo]

Originally Posted by The last sane person

Funny...great timing, right when his poll numbers dropped.

You would have been able to say that on any other day. His poll numbers aren't going anywhere good, ever.

[The last sane person]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

You would have been able to say that on any other day. His poll numbers aren't going anywhere good, ever.

.....Point. Still, y'never know with this goofy bunch. Oh well, if they hit, they hit, one way or another.

[The Gaffer]

LOL Rian.

I think we can be assured that if it was as a result of domestic spying we would have been told about it. From what I've read, it was from the operations by foreign nations.

It's classic doublethink: if there's no attack, it's because the policies are working; if there's an attack, it justifies the need for the policies.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It's classic doublethink: if there's no attack, it's because the policies are working; if there's an attack, it justifies the need for the policies.

No, it's "if there are attacks (successful or unsuccessful), this justifies the need for the policies." If there are few successful attacks, this shows the policy is working. If a large proportion of the attacks are successfully carried out, this shows that there is a problem with the policy. Perhaps the policy is just not useful, or perhaps the policy is not enough.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I think we can be assured that if it was as a result of domestic spying we would have been told about it.

I do think they would probably have to keep some of their successes with domestic spying classified, in order to keep their enemies from learning how they're spying.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Bush doesn't want to hear the conversations you have with your girlfriend about football, and other things...I'm sure the whole thing is a much lesser deal than we make it out to be.
I've got nothing to hide.

This argument is basically the equivalent of saying let our government do whatever they want because im sure it will be for our best. Well you are in effect giving the government unchecked absolute power over yourself. And theyve clearly shown that to be a bad idea. Lets assume that Bush is a swell guy and wouldnt use this power for any nefarious purposes. But when we give "the presidency" absolute power to spy on anyone and everyone you give it to more then just Bush and sooner or later someone is going to come along and abuse that power. Its an inevitability when you are talking about humans. So THATS why you cant allow things like blatantly illegal unconstitutional spying to occur. Because even if you think YOU have nothing to hide the powers that be down the road may later define what you are not hiding as worthy of marking you as a criminal or an enemy of the state or at the very least put you on a black list. Its been a common theme through out our history.

[Lotesse]

Good point, IRex. That suddenly just made me think of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and the "Red scare," and the blacklisting and life-ruining that went on back then. You guys remember that lovely period of 20th century history?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So THATS why you cant allow things like blatantly illegal unconstitutional spying to occur.

What is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional about this spying?

[Spock]

It was necessary. It is still necessary because the media have exposed the program and the bad guys will change communications for a while but they may go back if the left wing supresses this option. It's protecting the USA, not getting a bj in the oval office

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

two (rather OT) comments -

I figured they'd be aiming in LA's direction sometime soon ...

(on the bright side - maybe they'll hit Hollywood! )

Hilarious. And kill half my friends and myself in the process? Thanx a lot, yeah that's a real knee-slapper.

[HOBBIT]

It is abuse of executive power - not going through judicial branch at all. President just had to go to the FISA courts - but he did not. Only a few senators and/or congressmen knew a little about it. Bush went completely around the system. That is why many members of the Senate are pissed too,e ven republicans.

If Bush went about the spying the correct and legal way, then there would be no problem - or not as much of a problem.

The problem is the way in whch he did it. Spying without a warrant - huge violation of constitution.

FISA made it a crime to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance without court approval. The president clearly violated the law when he authorized, and then repeatedly reauthorized, the NSA to spy on Americans without first obtaining a warrant.

That answer your question, Lief?

[Spock]

NO violation "Congress grants all power to the President to pursue terrorists". Right or wrong they gave the power and he used it, sparingly.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Hilarious. And kill half my friends and myself in the process? Thanx a lot, yeah that's a real knee-slapper.

SOH alert! SOH alert!
(and you don't live in Hollyweird, anyway!)