Lounge of Tomorrow - Librarians turned snitch?

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Daily Grind (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=18)

- - Librarians turned snitch? (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=2580)

Probably because it was checked out in the agents name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Saying the Dems are responsible because they may have known is a bit of a stretch

I said they share blame, not that they are solely responsible. If they have known, and hold on to the info until a politically opportune time, then of course they are at fault. If they release this specific info immediately after it started (been going on under Bush's orders for over 4 years now, apparently), how could they be accused of timing the release of the info?

I clearly said it is wrong. I clearly said Bush is wrong. I think more are at fault. There is nothing wrong with saying that, nor is it any sort of attempt at justification.

If they did know, and had said as much just a few years ago, they'd have been tried for treason and strung up on Capital Hill. Everyone knows questioning Bush's behavior is the same thing as helping the terrorists! It also makes you un-American, Liberally-Elite and un-Rapture worthy.;)

This is all very Orwellian. I wonder if they'd bust me for borrowing that book... you know, '1984'
;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I have no doubt they weighed the political climate at the time. But it wouldn't have been opposition to Bush - it would have been what would be seen as weak on national defense. And they can't afford more of that in their image, whether it is deserved or undeserved.

I find it humorous that I am able to say Bush was wrong, but when trying to bring up the complicit behavior of the opposition party is cast aside as trying to lessen what Bush done. :confused:

Glen Reynolds had an interesting post on his blog today (he's a law professor with some familiarity on these issues), commenting that while he finds the wiretapping odious it may not have been illegal:

Quote:

It's also worth noting that there are two distinct issues here: Whether the wiretapping (or other interception) was legal, and whether the leak was legal. The leak almost certainly violated the law. The wiretapping is not so clear: Most people fail to appreciate how limited their protection against government surveilliance is, both under statutes and under constitutional law. And that's doubly so where international communications are concerned. (And, except for the small possibility of a constitutional-tort action, the main remedy for unconstitutional surveillance can be found in the exclusionary rule, which only comes into play if someone is prosecuted and the government tries to introduce the surveillance into evidence -- meaning that, as with the exclusionary rule in general, the remedy is worthless if you're never charged with anything, say because you're innocent.) Nor is this a phenomenon that can be blamed on the Patriot Act or the Bush Administration, particularly -- the protections are just quite limited indeed, and prone to technical parsing on such questions as whether the communications were "stored," even momentarily, en route. (For a non-FISA example of that kind of parsing, read the Steve Jackson Games opinion from 1994, long before the Patriot Act). You may find these legal interpretations offensive -- I do -- but they're the law as it is.
And this observation seems to be correct: "What is clear is that this is not some Watergate-type rogue operation, as seemingly hoped by some. In addition to repeated congressional notification, the program has been heavily lawyered by multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and NSA and White House, and is regularly reviewed. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of State Condi Rice have both insisted that program is legal. The fact that some might disagree with whatever legal advice and conclusions the president has received does not make them right or the program illegal. But at this point, we, the public, don't really know what these news stories are really about, do we?"

(I also like it because he raises the same point I already did in the other thread, a lot of what the government can do is only limited if they try to use it in court, if they don't care about going to court there isn't much prohibition.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I find it humorous that I am able to say Bush was wrong, but when trying to bring up the complicit behavior of the opposition party is cast aside as trying to lessen what Bush done. :confused:

If the Dems did say something, it would have been labelled by Bush and his party as the Democrats being 'weak on the war on terror'. Even if they did say something back then, would it have done any good? I'm thinking, no. Bush owns this one. Not anyone else. Bush.

(This post may be monitored by the CIA for quality assurance...)
:D

No, everybody who signed off on it should be held accountable for having done it. The president, the head of NSA, whatever agency people did it and approved of it. Any senators and congresspeople aware of it and not stopping it.

Political cowardice is not a good excuse for signing off on something that is wrong, particularly if it is illegal (I don't know if it is illegal, I do know that I think it was wrong).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

a lot of what the government can do is only limited if they try to use it in court, if they don't care about going to court there isn't much prohibition.)

I'm not sure there's much comfort in this as the current administration has done quite a bit to skirt around "normal" court procedures - declaring citizens enemy combatants, moving suspects to foreign soil, etc.

There's just a sense that there's a whole structure in place that is beyond the rule of law, that normal citizens have to recourse to due process for reasons of national security.

Quote:

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

There's just a sense that there's a whole structure in place that is beyond the rule of law...

That is one of my main gripes as well. Not only could they easily got warrants and actually done this legally, but I believe the law allows them to conduct the surveillance for 72 hours without a search warrant as long as they attempt to obtain one during that time. There were legal ways to accomplish exactly what needed to be done. They chose not to obey those laws.

Nor have they, as of yet, cited exactly where the law allows them to do this. (hint: I don't think it does).