Forums | MacLife

If an attack was linked to bin Laden or Ayman Zawahiri, then I'd expect plenty of critisism for not having these two men captured, despite the efforts of those hunting them in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The counter-spin would be that civil libertarians are holding Bush back from adequately protecting Americans, so it's not his fault.

how do you think it would be spun to blame Bush for not doing enough to prevent it?

No spinning is necessary.

RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

Now, the...

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste...

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the...

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

link

StaticAge wrote:

I think the attackers usually get blamed for that sort of thing. Or Iraq, whatever.

You forgot Poland.

NokX wrote:

Would Bush be blamed if another terrible attack like 9/11 occurred?

of course.

if we went back in time and learned that if a few planned phone taps would've taken place that 9/11 could've been prevented - everyone would've been all for it.

They had the ability at the time to immediately tap phone calls and apply for warrants later.  At that time (2001) no FISA warrant had ever been denied.  Your argument makes no sense.

ChronoTriggerXP wrote:

I like to through this quote around so here it is:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

what essential liberties have we given up?  have you perhaps looked up what franklin meant by essential?

perhaps you shouldn't throw it around so much if you're not sure.

I have no reason not to believe that the government denied the 4th amendment's right to be secure in one's home from warrantless searches to me and my family.

NokX wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

NokX wrote:

Would Bush be blamed if another terrible attack like 9/11 occurred?

of course.

if we went back in time and learned that if a few planned phone taps would've taken place that 9/11 could've been prevented - everyone would've been all for it.

They had the ability at the time to immediately tap phone calls and apply for warrants later.  At that time (2001) no FISA warrant had ever been denied.  Your argument makes no sense.

wait - so it's ok, and not against your personal "rights", to tap phone calls if it's not illegal - but if it's illegal, then it's against your rights?

who's not making sense?

i have a right to live and breath - period.  no matter what the law says.

If the government has a warrant, then it is legal.  If they do not, then it is illegal.  This is basic bill of rights stuff.  Apparently you are willing to toss out our constitution though.

kb5zhh wrote:

NokX wrote:

what essential liberties have we given up?  have you perhaps looked up what franklin meant by essential?

perhaps you shouldn't throw it around so much if you're not sure.

I have no reason not to believe that the government denied the 4th amendment's right to be secure in one's home from warrantless searches to me and my family.

well - apparently since the government picks homes by random (and not based on intelligence that would lead them there otherwise) by going through the yellow pages, perhaps i should just volunteer my home for whenever they have the spontanious urge to search a home.

First, homes are listed in the white pages, businesses in the yellow pages.  Second, the criteria, from what can be determined so far about this program, is that it included people indirectly linked to terrorists.  Put simply, you know the 6 degrees of kevin bacon game?  The bush admin apparently considers that chain of logic to justify warrantless searches.  Do you deal meth?  No, but I bet you know some one who knows someone who does.  By this logic, the government can kick down your door and search your house based on that.

I'd blame whoever was responsible for implementing the measures the 9/11 Commission recommended. Most of those recommendations have not been carried out, leaving us almost as open to attack as we were before 9/11.

I'd also blame Bush for focusing his attention on Saddam far more than Bin Laden, but really there are alot of people who have failed to respond and react appropriately to the things that left us vulnerable to attack prior to 9/11, and remain vulnerabilities today. I guess you could say the entire government has failed to protect the country. Bush is President, so he'll take most of the blame no matter what, but really the entire government has screwed up.

You have nothing to worry about if you've done nothing wrong.

Haven't you figured that out yet. geez, get with it man.

NokX wrote:

<snip>

Look, the point is not whether your boyfriend George Bush in particular is hurting anybody by bending the Constitution a little bit here and there. The point is that doing so sets a precedent for whoever is President 50 or 100 or 20,000 years from now to do the same thing as part of the war on Klingons or whatever. That we just can't (sanely) allow.

You have a point in that the judicial process involved in getting a warrant may take too long for the warrant to be effective in (for instance) preventing a terrorist attack but, that being the case, the proper solution is to solve that problem in the judicial branch of government -- not for the executive branch to simply bypass the judicial process because it takes too long.

I think the only people to blame would be the U.S. voters:

Dick Cheney, Sept. 7, 2004 wrote:

It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again.

The definitions are clearly set up to be mutually exclusive.  Otherwise, why would other parts of the act try and say that only certain subsets can be spied upon without warrant.

NokX wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

NokX wrote:

Would Bush be blamed if another terrible attack like 9/11 occurred?

of course.

if we went back in time and learned that if a few planned phone taps would've taken place that 9/11 could've been prevented - everyone would've been all for it.

They had the ability at the time to immediately tap phone calls and apply for warrants later.  At that time (2001) no FISA warrant had ever been denied.  Your argument makes no sense.

wait - so it's ok, and not against your personal "rights", to tap phone calls if it's not illegal - but if it's illegal, then it's against your rights?

who's not making sense?

i have a right to live and breath - period.  no matter what the law says.

kb5zhh wrote:

NokX wrote:

what essential liberties have we given up?  have you perhaps looked up what franklin meant by essential?

perhaps you shouldn't throw it around so much if you're not sure.

I have no reason not to believe that the government denied the 4th amendment's right to be secure in one's home from warrantless searches to me and my family.

well - apparently since the government picks homes by random (and not based on intelligence that would lead them there otherwise) by going through the yellow pages, perhaps i should just volunteer my home for whenever they have the spontanious urge to search a home.

You are very un-American. I wish you would move to France or something - you'd fit right in.