Bush Authorized NSA to Collect 200 Million's Phone Records

Bush Authorized NSA to Collect 200 Million's Phone Records
It seems people aren't giving Bush nearly enough credit for being as good at lying as Clinton. When Bush initially claimed that all wiretaps required a court order, everyone (myself included) believed him. Until, of course, we found out otherwise from journalists, whom revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap phone calls without approval from the FISA Court. Attempting to do damage control, Bush said that: a) It was necessary to prevent terrorism, b) Whoever leaked that information was endangering national security, and c) Only overseas calls to countries that terrorists use as a base were being looked at. Although no one believed him on the first two points, many people (who made no overseas calls) were at least comforted by the fact that they weren't the targets of the spying. Except . . . oh, wait, he was lying about that third point as well. Now it has been revealed that Bush authorized the NSA to start making a database of every phone call made within the U.S., and to use the database for data-mining, which would be used to determine whom to wiretap (again, without a warrent). And worse, three of the four major telecom giants, AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth, handed over all their phone records as soon as the NSA requested them. Only Qwest refused to cooperate. According to two anonymous Qwest employees, Qwest asked the NSA to go to the FISA Court if they wanted the records, and the NSA refused, citing the reason that the FISA Court might not approve it. Qwest then suggested getting approval from the Attorney General, which the NSA again refused to do for the same reason. Now AT&T is being sued for this, and lawsuits against Verizon and BellSouth are likely to follow. The law states that a phone company which divulges phone records without a court order is liable for $1000 per person. There are 200 million people affected by this. If the phone companies lose here (and they will), they will have just lost a grand total of $200 billion. Which they completely deserve. Naturally, most Democrats, as well as the more libertarian of the Republicans, are extremely pissed at the Bush Administration. As am I. For comparison, Nixon wiretapped people, but only for the purpose of personal gain in an election. Illegal, but not nearly as bad as illegally collecting 200 million people's phone records without a warrent, for the purpose of data-mining. It makes me wonder what else Bush hasn't told us that he's doing, since nearly everything he's said on the subject of getting court approval for privacy-related issues has been a lie. So, if you use AT&T, Verizon, or BellSouth, sue them. And then switch to Qwest, because they actually stand up for their customers' rights. And vote for candidates in the 2006 midterm election whom don't support this kind of crap.

(I usually don't state my political views, but....) I'm counting the days until we don't have to deal with his bullshit anymore. I'm glad that the American people realized their mistake (only 30% of us support him now - down from something like 55% in 2001), but the next election will probably be just as rigged as the last one. We may even be heading the way of the Roman Empire - once prosperous, but with many enemies, the Romans finally fell. I love my country, it's my government I'm afraid of.

knowing Tony Blair and the dumb ass he is he will most likely follow bush. Oh I hope we get the Tories (Conservative) next general election.

ok heres the worst part about this whole thing he wont be impeached because congress is been taken over by republicans(which happens everytime partys change) nobody will get there settlements because no one has said anything to anyone about that no one will come out and rally or pro-*test*-('") because after veitnam everything changed due to many innocent people being shot on U.S. ground for just pro-*test*-('")ing heres the funniest part, all this terrorism isnt happening so there is no need for this 3 reasons why there is no terrorism 1. caught sadam (though he had nothing to do with it, it still should have been a reason to stop all this bs talk about it) 2. all these videos of usama talking were faked 3. usama actually sent a truce about a month and a half ago, we(the govt) have ignored it... and reporters have stopped saying stuff about it... kinda strange

I usually don't apply my political or otherwise rhetorical views as I can be rather brash and uncompromising in my views and this caused many a flame war. So rather than apply MY polical view in it's entirety, I will snippet it at the finality of my post and fill the body of this post with fact that anyone with a brain and 5th grade education can understand and agree with. To begin with, let's not get all crazy over this wiretapping. Mainly because, until the NYT broke the news, nobody knew what was going on and it didn't interfere with their lives. And the NYT should learn to keep it's nose out of sensitive government business. They have the right to investigate the truth. The government also has the right to prosecute those who breach confidentiality and disregard sensitive government classified works in the name of "Journalism". I am glad Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has stated now that ANYONE, even journalists, who dispel, publish or otherwise compromise national security or sensitive classified works can be prosecuted up to and including Treason, which is automatically punishable in this country by death. That should slow nosy reporters and precocious pro-*test*-('")ers and hopefully make them think twice before they start ratting in public about things we Americans fully don't understand. Most importantly, let us remember that this isn't a safe world. And we Americans, for many years safe from all out terrorism, lost that security because we DIDN'T spy on people like we should have. Our president is in command here, not the New York Times or some repulsive Liberal like Cindy Sheehan and Barbara Streisand. The president has enough on his plate, more than we could imagine, than to be bothered by idiots who sit here all day and say "Fuck Bush" as if they know what they are even talking about. Always remember the golden rule of this country in times of war because it is true: No one person everything. Senators know their stuff, presidents know their stuff and the people only know what they hear. If you are not involved in the invstigation or have firsthand knowledge of such things as wiretappings, you (as in the public) have no weight to say a thing. You have an opinion about how you THINK things are. But until you know the facts, don't speak. The New York Times is not the defacto authority on ethincs and morality and journalistic integrity when they themselves are admittedly biased against Conservatives (Republicans) and favor Liberals (Democrats/Leftists). If you really want to form an opinion and pass it off as fact, do your homework and investigate where and how you can without going too far. Then verify your information and all it's comings. Then and only then can you say you have facts one way or another. Watching CNN and reading the NYT is NOT getting facts. They are reporters who are biased and will do or say anything to gain ratings and popularity as well as hoping to pawn off their unfounded ideals and bias on people to foolish, naive or plainly stupid to do their homework so they can come to forums like this one and bash the president and how he handles his policies with what they THINK is fact, when really it is rhetorical bias brewed up courtesy of CNN, NYT and even the Washington Post in the name of what they call "journalistic investigation and integrity". Well if this is what they call the truth and integrity, I hate to see their lies. Get the facts straight from the sources first, before anyone goes off on a Liberal Bush-bash and talk shit about things nobody knows anything about other than what the NYT and CNN told you! Wheew! Done. >:-D Sanojei

I usually don't apply my political or otherwise rhetorical views as I can be rather brash and uncompromising in my views and this caused many a flame war. So rather than apply MY polical view in it's entirety, I will snippet it at the finality of my post and fill the body of this post with fact that anyone with a brain and 5th grade education can understand and agree with. I think everyone here is mature enough to discuss politics without causing a flamewar. If I didn't, I wouldn't have started this thread in the first place. To begin with, let's not get all crazy over this wiretapping. Mainly because, until the NYT broke the news, nobody knew what was going on and it didn't interfere with their lives. First off, it was the USA Today, not the New York Times, that broke the story. Second, it could easily have interfered with people's lives. Their phone records were obtained illegally, and that database was then used to decide whom to wiretap (again, without a warrent). Once someone is wiretapping you illegally, it's not too hard to think that you might be arrested and imprisoned without access to a lawyer or a trial (which, again, the Bush Administration is known for doing). But besides that, I consider having the NSA looking through my phone records illegally without probable cause to be interfering with my life anyway. And the NYT should learn to keep it's nose out of sensitive government business. A main function of the media in a democracy is to keep checks on the government to make sure that it's operating in the interest of the people. Also, such information is not sensitive. "Sensitive" means that divulging it would contradict either the national interest or the Privacy Act (I did a school report last year about these terms, so I remember how they are used). It is certainly not in the national interest to keep such information about the government conducting illegal activities secret. It also does not violate the privacy act, because the USA Today didn't publish any of the phone records, just the fact that they were being collected. They have the right to investigate the truth. The government also has the right to prosecute those who breach confidentiality and disregard sensitive government classified works in the name of "Journalism". There is an exception in the "divulging classified information" laws which deals with whistleblowers. If a court (not the executive branch) concludes that such a disclosure is in the national interest (I believe it is here), then the people who divulge it are not violating the law, and are protected by the First Amendment. I am glad Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has stated now that ANYONE, even journalists, who dispel, publish or otherwise compromise national security or sensitive classified works can be prosecuted up to and including Treason, which is automatically punishable in this country by death. So it's good for the government to execute anyone who has the guts to point out when the government is overstepping its authority? Doesn't sound like a democracy to me. That should slow nosy reporters and precocious pro-*test*-('")ers and hopefully make them think twice before they start ratting in public about things we Americans fully don't understand. It is vital in democracy for people to be able to pro-*test*-('") what the government is doing. When the government has no checks of power, the whole country is screwed. Most importantly, let us remember that this isn't a safe world. And we Americans, for many years safe from all out terrorism, lost that security because we DIDN'T spy on people like we should have. Actually, we got attacked because, a) Clinton didn't want to start a war with Al Qaeda right at the end of his presidency, out of respect for the incoming president, and b) Bush didn't listen to Richard Clarke before 9-11 when Clarke told him that Al Qaeda was a serious threat. Our president is in command here, not the New York Times or some repulsive Liberal like Cindy Sheehan and Barbara Streisand. The president has enough on his plate, more than we could imagine, than to be bothered by idiots who sit here all day and say "Fuck Bush" as if they know what they are even talking about. I'm not pissed about this because Bush did it. I'm pissed about this because it violates my right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Always remember the golden rule of this country in times of war because it is true: No one person everything. Senators know their stuff, presidents know their stuff and the people only know what they hear. If you are not involved in the invstigation or have firsthand knowledge of such things as wiretappings, you (as in the public) have no weight to say a thing. Convenient how that implies that the government is accountable to no one. You have an opinion about how you THINK things are. But until you know the facts, don't speak. The New York Times is not the defacto authority on ethincs and morality and journalistic integrity when they themselves are admittedly biased against Conservatives (Republicans) and favor Liberals (Democrats/Leftists). If you really want to form an opinion and pass it off as fact, do your homework and investigate where and how you can without going too far. Then verify your information and all it's comings. Then and only then can you say you have facts one way or another. Watching CNN and reading the NYT is NOT getting facts. They are reporters who are biased and will do or say anything to gain ratings and popularity as well as hoping to pawn off their unfounded ideals and bias on people to foolish, naive or plainly stupid to do their homework so they can come to forums like this one and bash the president and how he handles his policies with what they THINK is fact, when really it is rhetorical bias brewed up courtesy of CNN, NYT and even the Washington Post in the name of what they call "journalistic investigation and integrity". Well if this is what they call the truth and integrity, I hate to see their lies. Get the facts straight from the sources first, before anyone goes off on a Liberal Bush-bash and talk shit about things nobody knows anything about other than what the NYT and CNN told you! Wheew! Done. >:-D Sanojei No comment on the rest, I think I summed it up fine already.

Very interesting news. My mom should actually be happy to hear this since shes been complaining about verzion for a while now.

I should have been more clear concerning the NYT/USA Today naming, since I have a habit of calling any Liberal newspaper who plays whistleblower the NYT. That is what they are known for. I stand corrected on that one. As for this being a "Democracy" let's remember this is a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. When we pledge allegiance to our flag, we don't pledge to the Democracy of the USA. We pledge to the flag of this Republic. Granted we are a Democratic type of Government, in title anyways. But as I told my friends in class long ago, this country was built on the foundations that there is 1 ruler (Commander in Chief) and a body of Lawmakers (Congress) which is then supported by a Judicial body of independent judges with their own politics which, as neccesity dictates, take on issues that either the lower branches of the Judiciary cannot resolve or that the Legislative/Executive branches cannot resolve. Ranting this way won't change what happened. I am rather glad for the wiretaps. I have a saying that our mothers and fathers told us in our young lives when concerning guilt and being busted: "If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to be guilty of or fear"! This does not excuse the actions of not going through the FISA court if and only if the law dictates that this was wrong. So far both sides have their stand and the law is gray here on the yes's and no's. Technically the Presidant cannot do what he did. Legally, he can if need be! This is a very complex issue and very complex law surrounding it. Let us not just take for face value what USA Today says. Afterall, they themselves have enough dirt under their rugs as we have sen a sample of over the years that if we knew what we SHOULD know about these so-called "free-press" antagonists, we would all rethink the way we approach and call "free-press", the "right to freedom of speech/expression/assempbly/etc" and this notion that the press, the most ardent of all things that stir up controversy and make things harder, is actually here for our own good and our "voice". I think not. That is my opinion. Sanojei

We should all go down to D.C. and stick all our penises into Bush's ear.

View Full Version: Bush Authorized NSA to Collect 200 Million's Phone Records