White House Declines to Provide Storm Papers - New York Times
Let's see. So the confidentiality of every American's communications can be compromised presumably to prevent more people from dying in future terrorist attackes, but the confidentiality of the executive branch cannot be compromised to prevent people from dying due to failures in federal responses to future hurricanes? So who is supposed to be in charge in this country, again? Because I keep forgetting.
Look, I realize that there are things that the executive branch must keep from public view, but I hardly see how anything relating to Katrina could compromise national security or anything. Obviously, this is all about power. Although I can't see any legitimate reason to like this guy, I realize that other people somehow do, but I just don't get how liking a guy makes it ok to give him whatever power he wants.
I wonder if the average American is more likely to die in a hurricane or a terrorist attack.
19 comments:
It might be just about power. Or, it might be that these guys don't want to go to jail for criminal neglect
Well, I don't see that happening no matter what they did.
It's that God complex. You are not to question him, and he's everywhere. Faith, inability to answer prayers, etc., you get it.
Hmm
Depends on where you live John . I was there in 93 and across the street on 9-11.
My family and loved ones live in prime terrorist territory in NYC and DC. This did not begin on
9-11 either .
If the terrorists knew how susceptible we were to hurriccanes and how unprepared we are, they would attack us with hurricanes. Duh!
So, beakerkin, is it your position that you're more likely to die in a terrorist attack because you live closer to the last one? That's ridiculous, it's no wonder Bush has been able to acquire so much power if people feel that way.
John
Been there and lived through it twice. Nor were the two WTC bombings I witnessed the only incedents. There have been a few plots broken up. Oh wait the fact that I lived through it twice gives me no added insight. Added wisdom is only given to Communist Antisemites like Cindy Sheehan who has made a mockery of her sons death.
Maybe the reason you guys are out of power is you still haven't got a clue. 3,000 people incinerated and you are still playing partisan games with an issue we should all be behind. Foiling terrorist plots
is a serious law enforcement function.
I do not stay up at night worrying about Civil Rights for terrorists.
However please by all means hyperventilate and campaign on the issue. No spying on Al Queda can be you campaign theme.
I'm all for foiling terrorist plots, but not at the expense of our civil liberties.
It's not about the civil rights of terrorists, it's about everyone's civil rights. Once you can take them away from "suspected" terrorists, especially when you don't have to justify that suspicion to anyone, then it's easier to take them away from everyone. Anyway, I seriously doubt that Bush's wiretapping is used only on suspected terrorists. If it was, he would do it legally. That's the whole point. I know you're not that dense, so I assume you're just blindly supporting your guy.
I'll go with no spying on Americans in my campaign, you go with Big Brother is watching you. Which one of those is more in line with American values?
Surely, there were problems with state and local governments as well, but why does that make you ignore or excuse the problems at the federal level? And before you ask me why I excuse them at the other levels, I don't but I don't talk about them simply because they don't really affect me. If there is a hurricane here, Blanco's and Nagin's responses will have nothing to do with me, but FEMA's will.
As for New York City, I never said it wasn't a target, of course it is, but there are a million things more likely to kill Americans, even New Yorkers, and some are even more preventable, but we don't give up our civil liberties so quick for anything else.
In this case we do not necessarily know the callers are even Amercians, all we know is that a call starting or ending in America is in communication with a known terrorist, a person whose stated goal is to kill Westerns and overthrow our government.
Are you serious? You can't be. Of course we don't know if it's even Americans, but we also most certainly DO NOT know that it is a communication with a known terrorist. That's the whole point. We don't know that. We have only Bush's word to assure us of that, and he's a known liar. If it was true, there is absolutely no reason to do it the way he is doing it. Could you specifically address why you believe that this power isn't or won't be abused? Because that's what it's about. What's to stop him from listening to political opponents, or anyone else?
If you're going to seriously argue that Bush isn't a liar, then there's really no point in even debating this.
I am talking about WMD and many other things. And again, I don't care what Clinton said, he is not the President. If he had invaded Iraq based on his opinion, then maybe I would have had more issues with him, but he didn't, and he's gone now. Why do you always bring him up?
Of course I am not suggesting that we stop gathering intelligence. I am simply suggesting we do it according to the law. Not so difficult, if you ask me. we should treat terrorism as a serious threat, but we should not act like it is the only problem (or even the biggest problem) facing Americans today, because it just isn't.
I haven't criticized Bush for not stopping the first attack. I think he could have done more to stop it, based on information we saw in the 09/11 commission report, but really no one had any reason to realize that the threat was quite so great at the time. However, your assertion that he's somehow foiled numerous plots since is ridiculous. There is no evidence to support that. Why on Earth do you trust this man so much? Is he some sort of personal friend? I don't trust anyone I don't know as much as you wingnuts trust Bush.
John
Kindly add up how many huricanes it takes to get to 3000.
Please continue to hyperventilate and get worked up about Civil liberties of terorists. International phone calls were always fair game for law enforcement.
Please try and get candidates to run on Civil Rights for terrorists.
I can see the future and not a single candidate would survive such idiocy. That is okay Johny has a Civil right to plot death mayhem and anarchy with foriegn agent Fred. That will play real well in November.
Civil Liberties do not out rank public safety. Since you are so worried about the first amendment have you paid any attention to the second. Wait the liberal approach to the Constitution is the cafeteria approach we like this deduct this and add mayo .
Sedition, Treason and espionage are not protected under the First Amendment.
It doesn't take that many when you have ones like Katrina. Anyway, how many terrorist attacks did it take to get there?
You cannot seriously be as stupid as your comment makes you look. It has nothing to do with the civil liberties of terrorists, it's about the civil liberties of everyone, including you. And again, how do you know that we're only talking about terrorists? You trust George Bush (for some reason that isn't readily apparent), I don't. But even if you trust him, you may not like the next guy so much. International phone calls were always fair game provided the law was followed, which it isn't in this case. Is it really so hard to follow the law?
And you please try to get candidates to run telling them the government knows what is best for them.
Maybe I might even lean toward your side a little more (ok, not really, but for the sake of argument) if there was any evidence taking away our rights would make us safer, but it doesn't. I'm all for protecting the second amendment as well as the first. You're the only one arguing against any of the amendments, notably the first and fourth. By the way, have you actually read the second amendment? How many people do you know that are part of a well practiced militia? Anyway, as the government works against the people more and more instead of for them, I'm gradually becoming even more fond of the second amendment.
Sedition treason and espionage are not protected under the first amendment. Got it. Now, who said they were? The fourth amendment does protect against unreasonable search and seizures. You should probably go read the Bill of Rights. But actually, I guess it doesn't matter to you as long as you are afraid, you'll give it all up.
Oh, and if the government keeps going down this road you're so determined to keep it on, you can be sure that your precious second amendment will be the next victim.
Sure John
Did you say a single word when the Clinton Administration used a series of warantless searches in housing projects in Chicago ? Did you say a word when Reno used the RICO act against the Prolife movement.
There is zero evidence that the goverment did anything other then
hunt for terrorists. However when we do get hit again the far left
(not you as you are not deranged)
will be screaming about Riechstag fires, Haliburton, Neocon cabals everything except the actual culprit.
As Sedition, treason, espionage and criminal activity are not protected and their is probable cause no laws have been violated.
Little Johny has zero protection on any call that leaves US soil.
Little Johny also becomes a legitamate target for law enforcement once he communicates with known terrorist Fred.
However feel free to gripe and demand Civil Rights for terrorists.
Another thing why do you exempt yourself from the Second Amendment.
You haved proved my Constitutional cafeteria thesis quite well.
You don't have any idea what I did or didn't say about Clinton, so to argue about it now is silly. Also, HE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT ANYMORE. I know most of you guys didn't get that memo, but it's true. Don't take my word for it, look it up somewhere.
And your assertion that there is no evidence that this was used to do anything but hunt for terrorists is absurd. First, because if that's true, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever not to do it legally. Second, because the very nature of the program makes it almost impossible for anyone to ever know if it is abused, AND THAT'S THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH IT. And even if it hasn't been abused yet, the potential for abuse is enormous.
Again, you can't possibly be this dense, you must just like to argue. Whoever little Johnny is talking to, we have only the President's assurance that there is any cause, probable or otherwise, to listen to his phone calls. Also, there is no oversight to make sure he is talking to Fred. Why don't you get that?
I'm griping and demanding civil rights for ME. And you too, even though you don't really want them. And where did I exempt myself from the second Amendment? Do you even read before you respond?
John you must calm down I am laughing through the keyboard. You described the Second Amendment as "your" thereby exempting yourself. I read your response much better then you did. Is it your second Amendment also or do we get to pick and choose from the Constitution Cafeteria style.
You are so worried about the First Amendment and Clintooon is so irrelevant. Lets see the Clintooons sent the IRS after David Horowitz, Joseph Farrah, Linda Trip, Chris Ruddy and a whole bunch of critics did you say a word. Did you say anything when
Matt Drudge and the owners of Free Republic were haraased with frivolous lawsuits by the Clintonistas.
No Free Speech only is a problem when Johny communicates with a terrorist abroad named Fred. The relevant facts are all overseas communications have never been protected. Next as soon as Johny talks to Fred probable cause has been established. The words get me some metamucil may be a code or it may mean get metamucil. Sedition, Treason , Espionage and criminal activity are not protected Free speech either.
This administration is way more responsible then the previous. Oh I forget Matt Drudge and Free Republic do not have the same rights at Johny Terrorist.
Explain to me how Johny does not become a reasonable suspect once he has contacted known terrorist Fred.
I meant "your" in the sense that you seem particularly attached to that one, not in the sense that it doesn't apply to everyone.
Again, you don't know what I said about Clinton, and again, it is irrelevant. Clinton is not the President anymore. Is that such a difficult concept?
If overseas calls have never been protected, then why does Bush need some special new secret program to listen to them? Your arguments completely ignore the facts, as usual.
There is only one administration in office currently. That's the one I'm concerned about. I could probably point to some bad things that happened during the Nixon administration that would upset me, but I don't get too worked up about things that are in the past.
So, who is it that looks at every Johnny that is being listened to and makes sure that they have contacted Fred first? Oh, that's right... no one. That's the point, beakerkin. You trust the government, I don't. Ironic, isn't it.
Unlike you I work with classified information each and every day. I am not allowed to discuss certain parts of my cases even with my boss or visa versa. You have zero clue what types of precautions are already in place .
beakerkin, if you can't top about your job, then it's pretty irrelevant to this discussion.
storm, there were failures at every lever of government. I focus on the federal ones because they are the only ones that have the potential to affect me personally. And I absolutely don't think you can blame the federal failures on the local failures in some logically twisted trickle down scenario. As a matter of fact, I thin the federal response should be prepared to compensate for failures at other levels. What if those other levels were devestated enough to be unable to respond?
And beakerkin, regardless of what protections are or are not in place at your job, there is no indication that there are any precautions in place in Bush's spying program. And if they are there, then he should have no problem simply doing things the legal way. Maybe you could explain why he can't use FISA to accomplish what he is after, since he is only after terrorists, anyway.
Post a Comment