Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Bush admits to illegal phone taps

This for some reason seems to be getting next to no coverage in the UK. Bush has admited that after September the 11th he authorised illegal phone taps. It is a big story in the US and involves loads of people from both sides of the House.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4536838.stm
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    This for some reason seems to be getting next to no coverage in the UK.

    I guess it depends on which programme you watch/listen to. I heard a big piece about this the other day whilst driving - alongside this was the Senate's refused to rubber stamp to extension to the Patriot Act provisions.

    Nice to see that the US Houses are finally waking up.

    It will be interesting to see the outcome of this story though [NB No admission yet]. Given that Clinton was censured over his lie under oath about sexual misconduct, Bush should certainly face an investigation an at least the same outcome if the allegations are proven.

    Also interesting that the New York Times have sat on this story for a year...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He has admitted it, in his speach to the nation, I was speaking to someone there last night and he has said yes, he did do it but it was for the countries own good.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indeed he has - Story

    Confessing to a crime on national TV, not the most intelligent thing to do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    According to the accounts I have heard lots of people knew about this already, which makes all of them as guilty as he is, including many big Democrats and Republicans.

    If he does go down because of this (and its very very early days) he will take a lot of people with him on both sides.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Confessing to a crime on national TV, not the most intelligent thing to do.
    Well he's not the most intelligent man around... :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uhhhhh why is this so surprising???

    The US government has listened in on phone convos for years. They have a red flag system I believe, certain words are "red flagged" and the conversation is recorded and cataloged. I have no idea if they sought court permission before hadn, I guessed they didn't but maybe they did but didn't have court clearance for these new ones.

    I don't really care anyway, its not that big a crime in the scheme of things. *prepares to be flamed*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    I don't really care anyway, its not that big a crime in the scheme of things. *prepares to be flamed*

    So the Police not following the law, thats not a problem?

    The security services breaching your privicy, thats not an issue at all?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    I don't really care anyway, its not that big a crime in the scheme of things. *prepares to be flamed*

    Nah, nothing major, just a breach of the constitutional right to privacy for a start...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who cares?? I'm not plotting to blow anyone up or assasinate anyone.

    No its not a big issue for me. Theres always loop holes not matter what constitutuion/non constituation you have. I'm sure there is one for this.

    They can listen in on my convos, most of them are general chat, enquireis about something or the odd bit of phone sex.

    It hoenstly doesn't bother me and as I said, its gone one for years, pre-Bush.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So you would be fine if the police always listened to your phone conversations, bugged your house, videoed your every move, went through your rubbish and watched you go to the toilet?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well thats just a tad bit more then listening to my phonce calls.

    If they went to that kind of level of surveillance then no doubt they would have something a bit more then suspecion.

    usually if they go to that level then have court clearance, thats if its the police. Because that is th epolice you talking about.

    for the real big threats, its more likley to be on the secret services and they will do it anyway not matter what so not much you can do about.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, you're obviously forgotten bongbudda that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"... :rolleyes: ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    for the real big threats, its more likley to be on the secret services and they will do it anyway not matter what so not much you can do about.

    So you dont mind at all that the Secret Service does what it likes, does not abide by the law and is uncontrolled?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    for the real big threats, its more likley to be on the secret services and they will do it anyway not matter what so not much you can do about.

    Until you find out, because it's illegal. In both the US and UK that is.

    US citizens are supposed to be protected by their Constitution from this kind of invasion of their privacy - even the Patriot Act required a judge to sign off (as I understand it).
    Who cares?? I'm not plotting to blow anyone up or assasinate anyone

    So? Do you have evidence that every person who was bugged was planning such a crime?

    Of course not, and I doubt that was the case for the security services either. Suspicion is not enough to warrant the withdrawal of our civil liberties. The whole point of the supposed War on Terrorism is our freedom. Give that up and we've lost.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't care at all. I expect that of the security services. Be a bit disappointed if they didn't to be honest.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So how far are you willing to go?

    How much freedom are you willing to give up?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yeah most people aren't so unless they are, they shouldnt have much to worry about.

    Of course its no infalliable but then nothing is.

    there is always a loophole, always.

    what freedom lost? are u stuck in you house? are you made to worship something you don't choose to worship? are your books burnt?

    its something I don't mind losing to help keep people safe.

    and thats what its for you know, not for fun, no doubt for their own ends sometimes but its not just to piss you off, it serves a purpose.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I do not care if the bug people's phoen calls. I don't care they do there jobs of survelliance and intelligence gathering.

    its their jobs, I expect of them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You should ask Santa to bring you a good book for xmas:



    0452284236.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    I do not care if the bug people's phoen calls. I don't care they do there jobs of survelliance and intelligence gathering.

    its their jobs, I expect of them.

    So you are totally prepared to give up any right to privacy?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude, you commit crimes daily. Whether it's you voicing your opinion over certain controversial topics, discussing your mate having taken some coke over the weekend and not telling the police about it or simply waiting outside a shop for too long.

    If you let security services legally (they are always gonna do it) collect information, anyone can be imprisoned on jumped up charges at any time on the whim of someone in authority. That person will probably be an unelected, unaccountable faceless 'crat, or it could be a politician out to stop rivals.

    Do you rreally think it's a good idea to have everyone's liberty hanging by a thread?
    there is always a loophole, always.

    He who makes the law makes the loopholes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You have privacy, but with cause you can have some of it listened in on. No big deal.

    tell me, if your family and you lover was on a train and a bomber got on the trian, and blew it up. Tragic right?

    So what if the security services had there suspeciousions about the bomber before it happend. They knew it was something but couldn't get details of what he was planning, they need to get that info tot do something about it. Maybe a phonce call made by them bomber is the one mistake he makes and it reveals everything. One phonce call and they have him. But some1 said a few months ago "we can't do that, breach of privacy". thats upheld. They never hear the call, they never get the ino, they never stop the train.

    Would that not be even more tragic? Would that not piss you off? would not lead to you blaming the government for not stopping the bomber all becasue of some rule on privacy??

    thats the facts my friend.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, the facts are that if the security services suspect somebody they can go and request permission from a judge to conduct survellaince on them.

    Any government that illegally bypasses the judiciary is not fit to be in power must be repelled immediately.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    You have privacy, but with cause you can have some of it listened in on. No big deal.

    tell me, if your family and you lover was on a train and a bomber got on the trian, and blew it up. Tragic right?

    So what if the security services had there suspeciousions about the bomber before it happend. They knew it was something but couldn't get details of what he was planning, they need to get that info tot do something about it. Maybe a phonce call made by them bomber is the one mistake he makes and it reveals everything. One phonce call and they have him. But some1 said a few months ago "we can't do that, breach of privacy". thats upheld. They never hear the call, they never get the ino, they never stop the train.

    Would that not be even more tragic? Would that not piss you off? would not lead to you blaming the government for not stopping the bomber all becasue of some rule on privacy??

    thats the facts my friend.

    What a fantastic image you have of the security services, always on the right man, always getting exactly the right leads at the right time, only held back by those annoying laws put in place to protect us.

    If they have good evidence they want to bug someone then they can go before a judge.

    Surely on your basis we should tape everyones conversations and everyone's homes should be on full CCTV.

    I think you would be quite at home in a police state.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    tell me, if your family and you lover was on a train and a bomber got on the trian, and blew it up. Tragic right?

    No, for someone's family, inevitable.

    I would prefer if it wasn't mine, but there is nothing you can do to stop it from happening.
    So what if the security services had there suspeciousions about the bomber before it happend. They knew it was something but couldn't get details of what he was planning, they need to get that info tot do something about it. Maybe a phonce call made by them bomber is the one mistake he makes and it reveals everything. One phonce call and they have him. But some1 said a few months ago "we can't do that, breach of privacy". thats upheld. They never hear the call, they never get the ino, they never stop the train.

    No mate, the security services wouldn't do this, don't do this with illegal wire-taps. If they had genuine evidence from a phone tap, they would pick the guy up on one of the afforementioned "jumped up" charges, or go to aggressive surveillance to make him change his mind. As they already do this, there is no benefit to making privacy invasion legal unles it's to control the other 99.9% of us who have no links with terrorism.

    You are obviously under the impression that the security services are there to protect you, which is fucking mad, they are there to control you.
    Would that not be even more tragic? Would that not piss you off? would not lead to you blaming the government for not stopping the bomber all becasue of some rule on privacy??

    I'd blame the government for pissing those people off in the first place, for removing my ability to protect myself against threats effectively and for existing at all. you are like a child or a tragic heroine from a comic book.
    !Wah! come save me from the bad men! !wah!

    The government are the bad men.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dude's casual disregard for the very same sort of practices of unwarranted domestic surveillance that we Americans villified throughout the Cold War as practised by the Stazi and KGB stems from the illusory "brand America, it can't happen here" attitude that underpins regular domestic programming (press and media).

    Lost on such dismissive types is the comrpehension that complacency to infringements of public privacy, however rhetorically justified, is the very open door to those with evil intentions of unaccountable power to which former Western democracies (such as Germany circa 1930s-40s) succumbed.

    Unfortunately like them, our own smug, sleepy sheeple will only wake when it is too late and such practices as above have provided the authorities with the tools for incriminating legitimate political opposition groups or activists required for a truly viable participatory democracy.

    Once upon a time the antics demonstrated in the Watergate scandal outraged the nation, now (as we see above and all too often across the net) there are apologists ready to shrug and ignore the insitutionalisation of such Consitutional betrayals with a naive and shortsighted "If you have nothing to hide...".

    Might be wise to remind this admin, characterised since it first seized illegitimate power in 2000 by stonewalling and character smears of all who attempt to hold them to account, of that very slogan. What more have they been and are they hiding?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    You have privacy, but with cause you can have some of it listened in on. No big deal.

    With cause, with evidence provided to a judge, subject to review then there might be a case for such eavesdropping.

    Still, if you have nothing to hide, why do they want to listen?
    tell me, if your family and you lover was on a train and a bomber got on the trian, and blew it up. Tragic right?

    tell me, if your family and you lover was wrongly targetted by the security saervices and the shot in a tub station. Tragic right?
    thats the facts my friend.

    Perhaps you should ask the east Germans about the difference between living in fear of your Govt and living in a free state... I think that history shows you their preference.

    That's the fact, my friend.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ok, I read the article but it didnt include some of the same things i have been seeing on CNN and FoxNews (Yes they both suck but they are in America) which said soemthing about, although President Bush did not have the secret surveillance court sign the orders, he and the Attorney General did sign and co-sign special orders which make any and all surveillance "legal" though highly unethical. Not sure if this all accurate or just more rumour spreading but it was what i saw in the live streaming coverage from America, soon to be dubbed ... "NSA-Gate"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    No, the facts are that if the security services suspect somebody they can go and request permission from a judge to conduct survellaince on them.

    Any government that illegally bypasses the judiciary is not fit to be in power must be repelled immediately.

    Spot on. If the law is bad the law needs to be changed. You cannot have the Government working outside the law, otherwise we have anarchy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, that would be totalitarianism, not anarchy NQA.
Sign In or Register to comment.