calling all neocons: how much is too much?
 

OK, so a lot of bandwidth on the surveillance measures being currently undertaken by the govt these days. What has surprised me is that only Joe has admitted that some of this stuff is disturbing. The rest of the "party line" seems to be:

'if you aren't doing anything illegal, what do you care?'

Is this really the way you feel? At what point do we go from "protecting the country" to a totalitarian state? How much is too much?

I'm more than willing to admit that most Dems are idiots, the party is lost etc. Can't those of you on the right admit that maybe, just maybe this is getting out of hand?

I'll agree that the system, like everything in our government, needs checks and balances, and right now it's pretty well wide open. Wide open in our government is not good, because though I would probably fall into the conservative slot, I will also admit that ALL politicians are crooks. Like used car salesmen, I wouldn't trust a one of them. A better alternative would be a system that could act quickly, but still consider if action is justified. I don't believe the government should be able to listen to anybody they like, but I want them to listen to those that intend to do us harm. So, where's the happy medium?

I have a hard time getting worked up about this. Bush told Congress what he was doing (not trying to pull a fast one) and did so during a war. The people tapped had to have terrorist connections, etc... I give that a pass, I really do. Rep or Dem I see no intention of malice in this at all.
If it were proven he used it for political or reasons other than defending the nation then sure....but alas no.

Edit:
To add I see no bad precedent being set here either, the bar` is pretty high. And to be honest, I assumed this stuff was going on already.

Okay, okay. I'll admit it. The Dubya "administration" may have potentially overstepped their bounds just a tad (in the interest of national security of course), perhaps.

I'll bet the next three years are spent unsuccessfully trying to get a look at the list of folks he personally approved gathering intelligence on.

Supe, wouldn't it be easier to type W instead of Dubya? Yeah, I'm lazy, what can I say?

or so they say. But there has been no background given to whom was tapped, what information was gathered or how the information was used. As most of us would admit politicians are cheats and liars, why should we believe only "terrorists" were the targets.

I agree Len, but whether it's going on under the radar or with admission, it doesn't legitimize it either way. Pseudo-fascism and citizens rights don't mix.

I think that the reasoning behind it was sound, i.e. going after terrorists inside the US and trying to bridge the gap between our intelligence services abroad and law enforcement domestically, BUT Bush should have just kept to the law as written and gotten the court orders.

So I would say yes, this action is troubling. Does that make me a neocon??

I think this whole argument is a lot like the one on torture:

Emergency NSA wiretapping of people with terrorist connections in circumstance where specific identification is not possible and/or timely approval is not possible? Acceptable.

Easing general wiretapping rules so that law enforcement can monitor people without a warrant. No way!

Torture in special cases, by CIA or other specialists, of high value terrorism suspects upon specific clearance from a senior official in full knowledge that it's illegal? That is, the ticking time bomb scenario. Acceptable.

Legalizing certain types of torture such that low brain function army privates decide to "have a go" at it with random prisoners. No way!

And exactly HTF could it be proven?? With no ******* records? :confused:

Oh. OK. I see that you were joking. My bad. :cool:

This is better than trying to erase a tape. The tape doesn't exist.

What makes you think there are no records? I may have missed that, but I didn'r hear him say there were no records.

Well, Supe, Kach, Tech, Steve are all still around...so the tapping wasn't for political purposes.

Just don't let snowman talk to the president.

CALEA Act:

The Clinton Administration, however, has consistently pushed for significant curbs on our ability to use cryptography to protect electronic privacy. It claims that without access to the keys of all encrypted messages, its "ability to fight crime and prevent terrorism" will be "devastated." But in fact, in the past decade, 83 percent of all wiretaps and other forms of government surveillance have been authorized in connection with vice crimes like gambling and drug offenses. The Administration is using scare tactics to acquire vast new powers to spy on all Americans.



ACLU

I honestly don't know the ins and outs of FISA off the top of my head, but there does seem to be an emergency clause which allows for hearings 72 hours later which can be retroactive. If that is the case and it isn't tough to get into the FISA court, then I really can't see why they would not follow the FISA law.

as usual, you're not answering the question. OK, the Clinton administration was guilty of this. It only has gotten worse by all accounts.

what about today? this administration?

You are the one constantly pounding the drum about the dangers of totalitarian/socialist/communist tendencies. Where does the line fall here?

I hope Specter will hold hearing on the warrantless wiretapping, as he's vowed to do. I would genuinely like to know the scope of the program, how the targets were selected, and what the benefits have been. Obviously we won't learn details, but in broad terms.

If the intentions were sound and good, the power has not been abused for political purposes, the program has caught/foiled terrorists, and the Administration now works with Congress to amend FISA so that they can do what has to be done while staying within the law, then I think this issue will blow over, and probably deserves to.

If it is the opposite, then we'll have a real scandal. You all recall the Iran-Contra mess.

The tapped conversations were made on US citizens with Al Queda ties making overseas calls. Since we're at war with Al Queda, the Dems were briefed, and the NYT sat on this story for a year before waiting for a "good time" to spring it (i.e. after the successful Iraq elections), it seems to me to be a reasonable policy. Predictably, those who really don't consider this "War on Terror" to be a real war, are going hysterical.