AP uncritically repeated Rove's dubious claim that warrantless wiretapping "might have prevented the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks"
SUMMARY: An Associated Press article uncritically repeated Karl Rove's assertion that the Bush administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program "might have prevented the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks," even though law enforcement officials had information on some of the 9-11 hijackers more than a year before the attacks occurred. The article also accepted Rove's characterization of the debate over the program as whether "the government should be free to listen if al-Qaida is calling someone within the U.S.," although critics of the program have not contested this point.
An August 24 Associated Press article by reporter John Seewer uncritically repeated White House senior adviser Karl Rove's dubious assertion that the Bush administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program "might have prevented the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks" and accepted, without challenge, Rove's mischaracterization of the debate over the program as whether "the government should be free to listen if al-Qaida is calling someone within the U.S."
According to the AP, while he was speaking at a fundraiser for Ohio gubernatorial candidate Kenneth Blackwell, Rove denounced federal district court judge Anna Diggs Taylor's August 17 ruling that the wiretapping program is unconstitutional. Rove reportedly stated: "Imagine if we could have done that before 9/11. It might have been a different outcome." But as Media Matters for America has noted, according to January 24 and January 5 articles in The Washington Post, the Bush administration had information on two of the 9-11 hijackers, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, more than a year before the attacks occurred. And according to the 9-11 Commission and congressional investigators, it was primarily bureaucratic problems -- rather than a lack of information -- that resulted in their escaping detection. The January 5 Post article reported that, according to the 9-11 Commission report, the "bigger problem" was that FBI investigators "had missed numerous opportunities to track" down Alhazmi and Almihdhar.
Moreover, critics of the domestic surveillance program have not contested that the administration "should be free to listen if al-Qaida is calling someone within the U.S," as Rove suggested. Rather, as Media Matters has noted, the controversy surrounding the program concerns whether the president is legally authorized to let the National Security Agency (NSA) eavesdrop on the international communications of Americans without first obtaining a warrant as required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
From the August 24 Associated Press report, by reporter John Seewer:
TOLEDO -- Presidential adviser Karl Rove criticized a federal judge's order for an immediate end to the government's warrantless surveillance program, saying Wednesday such a program might have prevented the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Headlining a fundraiser for Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who is running for governor, Rove said the government should be free to listen if al-Qaida is calling someone within the U.S.
"Imagine if we could have done that before 9/11. It might have been a different outcome," he said.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit last week became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, ruling it unconstitutional.
From USA today; 8/23/06;
"Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's apparent membership in a local foundation that gave $45,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan in recent grants. The ACLU of Michigan was one of the parties to the case challenging the surveillance program that was begun after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The lead challenger was the national ACLU."
At the very least she should have disclosed this, but she did not.
She should have - but at first I thought it was the other way around, that her organization received money from the ACLU.
After I realized that it was just about a membership in an organization which GAVE to the ACLU, I didn't think it carried the same weight, especially not when looking at the organizations website and seeing how much they give out in grants.
Still, an investigation would be in order, to determine if there was a conflict of interest.
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan
$25,000
Support to hire an attorney to focus on family law issues
--- $20,000
Support for year two of the GLBT project --
These two grants, with specific purposes, were from a total sum of $970,000 in grant money that they awarded for different purposes. And this was the organization - not her personally. I don't think there's much of a conflict of interest there because of this.
SHE HAD to know and APPROVE the grants, damnit.
Back to the article: MIGHT is the key word and a Legitimate claim with more weight than losing 2 SUSPECTS>
I want to know how that stinking 'blin shiek' was able to commuicate a friggin' jihad BLESSING to binladen to carry out the mission without SOMEONE catching on!
Did you forgot to take your medication?
And yes, she was a board member - part of a board who happened to approve that the organization gave a small grant to a very specific ACLU program. I don't think it meets the criteria for conflict of interest, but as I pointed out, it would be good if someone did a formal investigation.
I read it, it is not specific. I responded to this quote in article: "The January 5 Post article reported that, according to the 9-11 Commission report, the "bigger problem" was that FBI investigators "had missed numerous opportunities to track" down Alhazmi and Almihdhar." it was primarily bureaucratic problems -- rather than a lack of information -- that resulted in their escaping detection.
Is it legitimate arguement Wiretaps "might" have tracked them?
The "blind shiek" Abdel-Rahman was in prison after the WTC bombing. He was able to communicate the edict (blessing) to binladen to carry out 9-11. How and Why did that get by everyone?
(Interesting point in wiki article, one of the WTC bombers "ousef began assembling the 1,500-lb urea nitrate-fuel oil device for delivery to WTC. He ordered chemicals from his HOSPITAL ROOM when injured in a car crash. ( A case for taps on domestic calls? How would one know to ask unless a specific term like (I would like to order (1,500 lbs. of fertilizer) please and deliver to ________.
15000 lbs would trigger flag, warrant would be obtained. Delivery address staked-out. Muslims would have hard time explaining the order.) Just a general what-if.)
I would be okay with that personally and would make my nitrate orders in person or have a good reason for having it.
That is not the issue at hand!? THe issue is that the wiretapping is UNCONSTITUTIONAL - it's not just this one judge who has decided this by herself - that is to say, she is not alone in her opinion.
You could probably have stopped September 11 by banning Moslems from entering the US. YOu could also have stopped September 11 with various changes to the foreign policy that has caused people to 'hate our freedoms.' These have been discussed extensively and there is no reason to reiterate them.
THe point, though, is that this constant shadow of 'terrorism' is being used against us, by Hannity, by the Government, by Republicans in general. You need to wake up, and stop looking for some other issue, Tommy.
I strongly suggest you consider the case of SHerman Austin from California, to ascertain the 'success' of the government's counter terrorism measures.
Did you ever think the reason why Taylor didn’t disclose this information was that she didn’t know the group gave money to the ACLU?
On another note, I saw a couple of news story that stated the illegal warrantless spying program started before the 9/11 attacks and somehow this did not help stop the attacks.
are we gonna make it a rule now that whenever a judge makes a ruling the very 1st thing they must do is reveal their sex, race, and political affiliation? The next time a judge rules in favor of the bush admin he should have recused himself if he was a white protestant republican that contributes money regularly? That's just going overboard, don't ya think?
Let's examine the conflicts of interest that Scalia had when ruling on his duck hunting buddy (aint it a shame that deadeye dick didn't shoot him) and his secret energy cabal. Or how about the potential conflicts of interest of the whole gang who voted bush into office the first time? Anybody else want to offer some potential conflicts of interest that tommy should be concerned about?
self-rightous right-wing whine about the lack of civil discourse on the left here. note the lack of awareness about where said lack started.
Now you're doing the same thing that I hate when the right-wingers do - defending "your own" not by stating a case for your side, but by saying "well, your guys are worse". Really, stop that... it's extremely childish.
I refuse to refer to this "program" as a terrorist surveillance program. Let's be real and call it what it is: WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING.
Changing the name of the program does not change the issue. Giving it a nicer name doesn't change the issue. It's all Bush Administration double-speak. Keep up with the spin. It just shows how dishonest the Bush Administration has to be in order to promote it's agenda.
1984, anyone?
It's scary how Orwell was so dead-on, even if he was 20+ years too early in his "predictions".
That Rove can claim, in hindsight, that the September 11 attacks might have been prevented if warrant-less wiretaps were used, but actually reading and reacting to the presidential daily briefing of August 6, 2001 would not have prevented the attacks.
A lot of things might have enabled us to prevent the attacks. The bush administration was not interested in terrorism until AFTER we were attacked. Since then, they've been interested in only one thing, invading Iraq under the guise of fighting terrorism.
agree more.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The insinuation is that (i think) somehow the democrats and this judge could be blamed for September 11, because they would have opposed the wiretapping, which would have stopped September 11.
Is it wrong to suggest that for Bush and his surrounding elite, the events of September 11 have been hugely rewarding? Im not pretending these people ar heartless, or that they WANTED September 11, but they have done some clever things using the event as a reason.
PNAC. We have talked about it before. It's a simple Google that might give you some insight as to what these morons want to do to this country - just to get rich.
I say, lock 'em all up. Fascist opportunism has never been so ugly.
The "DID IT FOR THE MONEY" is sickening. To think 3,000 people murdered by a select few to perpetuate a complex series of events to personally gain seems to take a sicker mind to promote the crap than to come up with it.
Again: do you really believe some soldiers marched our citizens into hangers (AREA 51?), murdered them and disposed of them, remote controlled planes, invade Afg. to throw off suspision, a CIA binladen look-alike, all tha S*I*! And NO ONE involved dares to come forward and tell? MAN THAT"s Power! That is some sick mind to forment that.
100 MILLION is the next cap on the infadil's that jihadists have been blessed to vaporize. I can't wait to see BushCos, Halliburton. and the nasty Jews pull that one off!
Colson: "We were 7 of the most powerful men in the world and we couldn't keep a secret for 2 weeks"!
pnac, whose members are at the top of the bush administration, did say it would take a new "pearl harbor" to get the american public to support their attack iraq plan. [that plan worked out well, didn't it.] that invites speculation.
Just an off-the-top of my empty, kool-aid-chuggin' flat, low-browed head summary of all the 9-11 conspiracy theories I have come across on liberal websites. Commonsenseliberal feels PNAC is a dollar motivated plan for prosperity at the expense of his fellow citizens.
I mean it is one thing to hate BushCo's for their policies, decisions, handling of the press, data mining, et al. He bumbles and doesn't speak well enough off-the-talking points, so he is "stupid". Easy shots. I believe he speaks from the heart and no one in politics should. It is too risky. (He is my case in point). I believe it is because of his faith and the fear and loathing it brings to the heart of so many agnostics, athiests etc. (who seem congregated on the left). It is not the issues, it is his unshakable faith that a more powerful will is acting.
I want to know what is being said in mosques and on phones and where every dollar is going from any of the radical muslims or their groups.
I guess PNAC could be seen as the reason for concern of the 'distruction' of our nation. I find the fact that a real group of well-funded fanatics may really not mind waiting a few hundred years to occupy a nuked territory. As long as lil satan and SATAN aren't in it.
The fear to be faced is either the neo-cons "agenda" or jihadists.
I believe the threat is without, not within. I believe it will not matter if it is dems or reps or commies running the country. I believe there is a masssive confrontation coming and forces beyond ANYONES control will been seen. I see Bush's eyes and I know he believes EVIL forces are at hand, personified by jihadists. He believes he is doing all necessary to achieve heading it off as much as is possible today.
The continued theories that this country or admin would seek financial gains as the motivation to allow 9-11 or invade Iraq, by creating some phantom enemies, (muslims) is not a possibility in my world. It seems a conventient distaction for a few 'intellectual giants' from the truths of the worlds' coming crisis. I offer:
Mar 8:36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?
There is enough evidence to make people question PNAC and their motives. Also, if you look at the Downing Street Memo, it is obvious that the Bush administration had the intent to go to war with Iraq no matter what. This also fits perfectly into the PNAC plan to take over natural resource interests (oil) in Iraq, along with the huge government contracts (no bid, even) to Halliburton, for new infrastructure in Iraq. Cheney is still linked to Halliburton.
When you put this information together, you get somewhat of a picture of what these PNAC folks want to do. Whether or not the Bush administration knew about 9/11 (a new "Pearl Harbor" event) or not, it plays into their plan PERFECTLY. Whether we had 9/11 or not, we were bound to invade Iraq. Again, we are not in Iraq to fight terrorism. We are there for the money it can bring a select few in the upper echelons of our government - and to make the corporations to which they are tied even richer. Terrorism is the excuse this administration uses to remain in power and subvert the constitution for its own gain. Now, here we are with a judge who has done her duty to uphold the law, and people like you whine about how it's emboldening the terrorists. GMAFB.
Now, the Right-wing is on the attack. They attack this judge for doing her job. Nice. The Constitution means NOTHING to these Right-wing nutbags.
It's too bad that our government puts corporations' wealth above the welfare of the people whom it pledges to serve. In some European countries, would-be politicians must cut all financial ties to all corporations so that the interests of the people can be served, not the interests of the corporations.
It's obvious that this administration is more interested in the wealth of the corporations and their kick-backs than the welfare of the people. This, in turn, is a direct violation of the oath of office which the President took upon inauguration (sp?). I say, kick him and his money hungry ilk out of office and put people in power who will do as they promised: to faithfully serve the people of our country.
CSL
p.s. what does ANYTHING in your post have to do with the topic at hand?
CLINTONS ADMIN backed off when they had binladen in sight, but a SWINGSET in the yard made them back off. THIS AFTER the Tanzania, Kenya and the Cole. 200 dead and 4,00o injured! A SWINGSET and HE couldn't grow a PAIR! Clinton also missed at Kabul (in the sights) because osama made a RANDOM turn away from there by CHANCE. Two weeks of bombing in bora-tora with the biggest/most effective weapons we have, (Bernstein should have moved a small squad to within sight to LASER the target, he didn't. He called for 600-800 rangers to be brought up in a matter of days 10,000' altitude. Think of those roads and helicoters loaded with troops, sitting/flying ducks).
We didn't get him. Do you think there might be something going on besides luck or woulda.coulda.shoulda? The blame is thick enough to go around.
The jihad has been blessed for a CAP of 100 MILLION infadels lives.
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO TO PREVENT that?!?!? SEE cnn "In the footsteps".
You would think from reading your post Bill Clinton was President at the time of "Bora Tora[sic]".
Where does the buck stop with you? You can't bring yourself to just criticize Bush without oddly bringing in Clinton.
I contend Bernstein did not do HIS job at Tora-Bora.
Again: he COULD have used his operatives at hand and moved close enough to where they had used binladen's own radio to know almost exactly where he was and LASERED the site. We bombed for 2 weeks with very effective weapons.
I would not have sent 600-800 rangers up 10,000 feet altitude in trucks on narrow mountain roads or in helicopers that I believe might not fly so good in thin air with heavy loads. They would be sitting ducks. I don't believe there was an airport. This is what I would scream at Kerry ( new name here) when he tried his talking points. Would he really take that risk with his troops? I would hope not.
Clinton nor Bush failed there, BERNSTEIN was in charge and he screwed up and HE passed the buck up to the President.
i know they did hesitate one time because half the royal family from the united arab emirates was hunting with bin ladin.
And I believe it was Bush's admin that made the decision. THAT would have been "political fallout" on a grand scale. (Not addressed in Cnn report) that pointed up other times we may have gotten O (NOt oprah).
Clinton Clinton Clinton.
Clinton Clinton Clinton.
I've said it before.
I'll say it again.
CLINTON HASN'T BEEN IN OFFICE FOR 5+ YEARS.
When are you Right-wing nutjobs going to start putting some accountability where it belongs - squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration?
That's just like saying that Pearl Harbor was Herbert Hoover's fault because he didn't do anything to stop Imperial Japan's Asian land-grab.
I don't know how people with such convoluted logic can function, let alone graduate 9th grade. Get a grip.
Reading the August, 2001 PDB that said, "Bin Laden determined to strike US."
Conveining the Terroism Task Force Cheney was supposed to lead.
Implementing the plan the Clinton Administration gave you to combat al Queda.
Listening to your FBI agents when they warn you about people taking flying lessons who don't want to learn how to land.
Not getting distracted by Iraq.
'Listening to your FBI agents when they warn you about people taking flying lessons who don't want to learn how to land.'
Doesnt that just sound ridiculous? Its like something out of Monty Python. What other information could they have derived with wiretapping that would have lead them to action?
This executive is treating out population like children.
At the website "Center for Cooperative Research" you'll find the best, most comprehensive listing of information that I know of about the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Their "Complete 911 Timeline", managed by Paul Thompson, contains a lot of information; you could easily get lost in it all.
In that timeline, you'll find information, referenced originally to a San Diego Union-Tribune article written 9-15-2001, just days after the attacks, when people were very interested in the identities of the 19 hijackers (but before the administration went into an extraordinary effort to distract and confuse the American People from identifying those hijackers, for reasons which you would do well to understand)...
The timeline has, under the heading February 2000-Early September 2001: San Diego neighbors to Hijackers see mysterious late night visits and car rides
[link to www.cooperativeresearch.org]
"...the hijackers [Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar] live with FBI asset Abdussattar Shaikh in the neighborhood of Lemon Grove [CA, near San Diego] in late 2000."
It is only recently that "FBI asset" has been changed from "FBI informant"; when all of this was being revealed to the Congressional Joint Inquiry, Abdussattar Shaikh was an "FBI informant".
The point here is, that not only did those two hijackers live with an FBI informant, but they lived with him as his guests, in his own house.
So someone in the administration (Rove) wants to claim that "data-mining" telephone calls across the U.S. would have turned up something about the hijackers, when two of them were living in the home of an FBI informant?
That FBI informant could have listened in on every phone call his "house guests" made (and never been in violation of the law in so doing), and yet the administration (Rove) contends they needed "data-mined" wire-taps?
Two hijackers lived with an FBI informant?
And a third, Atta, is described by witnesses as perhaps also visiting that home in Lemon Grove?
Why isn't such information (such truth) more widely known and discussed by the American People?
(If you haven't guessed by now, the "informant" is obviously part of the hijacking plot, so as to report to the FBI "these guys are OK, trust me", causing the FBI to cease any surveillance on those hijackers; which is exactly how it went.)
Because that information, and other things too, such as...
"A Saudi named Omar al-Bayoumi arrives in San Diego, California. He will later become well known for his suspicious connections to both some 9/11 hijackers and the Saudi government... Just prior to moving to the US, he worked for the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation, headed by Prince Sultan. His salary in this job is approved by Hamid al-Rashid, a Saudi government official whose son, Saud al-Rashid, is strongly suspected of al-Qaeda ties. ...In fact, ...he receives a monthly stipend from Dallah Avco, a Saudi aviation company that has extensive ties to the same Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation. The FBI is investigating possible ties between Dallah Avco and al-Qaeda. The firm’s owner, Saudi billionaire Saleh Abdullah Kamel, has denied the accusation."
I could go on.
Study the Timeline yourself, at your leisure; and by the way, the various sources for the above excerpt are publications such as Newsweek, the L.A. Times, and others; all published in a timely manner following 9-11, and not "conspiracy theories".
Why is this information not widely discussed?
Because it is being suppressed by the administration (Rove et al); because the Conclusions Section (Part Four) of the Joint Congressional Inquiry's Report on the attacks of 9-11 have been "classified" by the administration, to protect their "good friends" the saudis, and keep the American People in the dark, confused and focused (strangely) on Iraq.
Why does the administration protect it's "good friends", and disserve the American People in so doing?
[link to www.cooperativeresearch.org]
January 2000: "Former President George H. W. Bush meets with the bin Laden family on behalf of the Carlyle Group. He had also met with them in November 1998 (see November 1998), but it is not known if he meets with them again after this. Bush denies this meeting took place until a thank you note is found confirming that it took place."
The source of that information is an article in the Wall Street Journal, dated September 27, 2001.
...you're 100% correct. I've seen the website you mention and find it to be a valuable tool. Hey, the NeoCon crackpirates have their tools, we have ours.
Excellent post, Dem.
It never ceases to amaze me what lies these people will come up with in order to play the whole CYA game.
An FBI informant was indeed living with two of the hijackers. And nothing was done about it. Nice.
Good job, Bushie!
This points to an FBI fumble and the whole "sharing of resources and information" discussion post 9-11.
An FBI informant was also imbeded in group that bombed WTC in the first place. He was responsible for id-ing them after most had fled the country. (Egyptian man named Emad A. Salem).
Yousef, the mastermind, told FBI agents that he regretted not having enough that the towers didn't collapse and his fellow terrorists would try again. Another bomber had sent letters to several NY newspapers before the incident.
The FBI missed 9-11? Yeppers. and the first bombing.
Maybe they're behind the whole mess for some "showdow opperation".
For someone who's so insistent that MMFA stay on topic, you're certainly quick to divert attention to something that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. What does Judge Taylor's possible conflict of interest have to do with the fact that Karl Rove is talking out of his a$$ and the AP is unquestioningly printing what he says?
As for whether the verdict on the NSA program is in jeopardy, I'd wait to see whether 1) Judge Taylor actually did do something shady and 2) whether or not it's enough to overturn the verdict. The word of a right-wing group like Judical Watch isn't terribly convincing.
You're right, she should have disclosed her (possible) connection to the ACLU. But that doesn't mean she committed an ethical violation. Given that the Bush administration has a vested interest in discrediting her, I have no doubt that if anything improper happened, it will be exposed. And if they can't find anything, I'm sure they'll do their best to Swift Boat her.
This was intended as a reply to tommy.
a company you used to be the CEO of, for 'reconstruction' (read theft of natural resources) of a country you just illegally invaded, be considered a 'conflict of interest' tommy?
I bekieve that 9 of the 14 (not specific, sorry) of our FED District Cts. (including the most liberal one on the west coast that is the liberal temple of worship) refused or refuted the case brought. MANY constitutonalists QUESTION her basis and suggest OVER_REACH.
The merits of the case brought without ANY proof of actual damage or violation(s) substantiated. It was FEAR they were hindered by people overseas would be afraid to talk to them (chris hutchinson's constant paranoia-NO listens or talks to him).
NO YET CAN PROVE a call intercepted, or specific date or time they were listened in on.
AGAIN: there is PRECEDENT for the AG of US to authorize warrentless wiretaps. A warrent is then sought IF a suspicious 'flag' is detected, SPECIFIC warrant is sought with specific reasons. The FISA court itself ruled a distinct difference of how warrentless taps may be used:
"The balancing test from Keith case referred to in the decision is a legal test that asks if the primary use of the warrantless search to collect foreign intelligence as per presidential authority, or was the primary use of the warrantless search to gather evidence to use in a criminal trial."
PRECEDENCE and basic judicial prudence, and the merits of the complaintants seem to dictate this judge over-reached big time.
I believe this case will be eventually overturned because the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate their standing explicitly.
Another problem is that the Judge cannot know all of the procedures and systems behind the warrantless spying because the government still treats it as a secret and understandably won't give necessary details.
This may very well present a flaw in our own judicial system. Surely the Judiciary in some form (maybe FISA) should have the responsibility of determining if the Executive has ignored or abused the seperation of powers or otherwise ignored the Constitution, its Ammendments and/or US Law in a clandestine operation.
This case will likely be thrown out or overturned on appeal, but if this isn't solved one way or another, we all lose.
Forgot to fix the HTML from the post above mine.
That the AG must indicate that there is no substantial liklihood of any American persons being caught up in the wiretap for him to make that determination according to FISA. The KEITH case a WARRANT WAS OBTAINED
[link to www.fas.org]
There is no disagreement between the government and the FISA court as to the propriety of the electronic surveillance; the court found that the government had shown probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign power and otherwise met the basic requirements of FISA. The government’s application for a surveillance order contains detailed information to support its contention that the target, who is a United States person, is aiding, abetting, or conspiring with others in international terrorism.
Nice try conflating the two and pretending that the Keith case had anything to do with WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS. Did you think no one would call you on this?
...about this article. Of course, hindsight is definitely 20/20; however, if the Bush administration really wants to take this to its logical conclusion, I think that they could have done this:
Listened in, got the warrants for the listening in (you know, it's a retroactive 72 hours), arrested the terrorists. Funny, though, how if they believe they should have been able to do it then, but they are definitely doing it now, it leads one to believe that before 9/11, they didn't have any interest in doing such wiretapping. So, this argument doesn't help their case. The Bush administration knows they shouldn't be listening in on peoples' conversations without a warrant, but they are doing it anyway. So, what would have stopped them from doing it back then? That's the question.
There are several scenarios as to why they didn't do it back then: (1) The Bush administration had no interest in stopping 9/11 because of their agenda in promoting the whole PNAC thing. (2) It's possible that the whole warrantless wiretapping thing has nothing to do with stopping terrorism, but for listening in on political opponents who might make enough noise about the PNAC issue, but the administration uses the "wiretapping" thing to cause division in the country, again, the conservative "us" versus "them" mentality. (3) Fear tactics to remain in power.
Maybe I'm going overboard. However, I'm not shocked at what that buttclown Rove says anymore. He's a waste of skin.
CSL
Bush and co were so disinterested in terrorists prior to 911 that he brushed off a report about terrorists using planes to attack buildings. You can't stave off disaster when you're sitting on the pot reading "my pet goat".
that he would not have wanted to be a part of the clinton administration. newflash, you walking scum. he wouldn't have a dirty dealing, do anything to win, screw the country if it benefits me, dishonest piece of garbage like you in his administration.
Permit me to hazard a real "wild" guess.
Very few Americans are contacting Al Qaeda through land lines, cell phone and internet communications to plan doing harm to the U.S, and those few would have to be idiots as well as diabolically evil murderers. What justification is there for listening to all Americans, as if everyone is a suspect, in a country that is supposed to presume innocence until proven guilty? In a country, that also has a founding principle with regard to privacy that protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires a warrant based on probable cause.
When the leaders in America are permitted to break the law, our representatives are avoiding their duty to the people and our nation, because their first response to "any" individual's claim of a right to do so should be to uphold the law and defend the Constitution. If they do not, we are no longer citizens of the U.S.; we are the administration's subjects.
The current administration had all the information and warnings it needed to prevent 9/11, but they were slow, apathetic and distracted with giving their top supporters a kick back on their campaign contributions, while they tossed a bone to working class Americans so they would keep their mouths shut, (something is better than nothing,) and label it a tax-cut.
Knowing human nature, adding warrant-less interception of all communications expects a level of trust that, simply, is not realistic. It would not have waken them from the trance of success, and the foolishness of unwarranted arrogance that clouded their perception, which left them unresponsive and lacking in cognizance of subtle changes in the world around them. They did not respond to fifty plus other warnings. Why should we believe that they would have responded to number fifty-one?
Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George Bush are an embarrassment to all Americans, because the deceptions they try to shovel the citizens' way, prove to foreigners and thinkers everywhere that the nation's leaders take Americans for fools. It is an attitude that is about as far from patriotic as one could possibly imagine. And this from the people who are, supposedly, strong on national defense. And this in a nation that was once admired.
Strange conspiracy theories are usually advanced by a nation's intelligence agencies to obfuscate plausible theories.
So, is it acceptable to take the life of a child if one can more readily eliminate his enemy? Or does one have to be indifferent toward the ordering of taking a child's life, while alternatives remain.
Personally, I'm not so certain, that it would not bother me to order the colateral killing of a child, even if it was my enemy's child, and even if my enemy was killed too. Then I am also someone who does not believe that when the enemy hides among civilians it is not automatically an excuse for killing civilians. It might be like oysters, something one has to acquire a taste for.
the acquired taste involved over 3,000 oysters. Women and children.
Still a distasteful act to have taken him out then. Hell it was only 200 dead, 4,000 wounded then (maybe 1 or 2 kids). So kids underOsama's care are ____________?
For such a formula. You have no moral authority to make that decision for others. If we start killing children because its convienient, what makes US any different than THEM? Death is not the worst thing that can happen. A complete loss of values and integrity would be worse.
If the government does as little as suggest that it might spy on all Americans, yet never actually does it; it is functionally the same as doing so, because of the "chill", (self-censorship,) it would put on all communications.
I find it hard to believe you are really concerned that an indiviual is sitting at a console somewhere listening to chill a conversation with your in-laws or granny?
I understand it: it is computer programs that are keyed to certain words.
So as long as you or your relatives are not concerned about carrying (bomb-making materials) into the (tunnel) and you are hoping the (mall) is full of (targets) so you can get the (hdrogen-peroxide) and (get out quick) before (security sees) you so you can (blast) over to grannys for the (fireworks) and watch her (blowing) out the (flames) of so many (candles) on the cake, no human will ever hear the conversation.
If someone is having a conversation like that, the keywords would trigger a monitor, and a warrant would be sought. I sure would like to know it.
How does that chill a normal conversation? What judge would issue a warrant on these grounds to monitor the call in the first place?
Egg-chicken. Warrant-suspect? Which comes first?