• NudeCelebForum has been moved from the vBulletin to the XenForo platform.
    For additional information, see: NCF Moved To XenForo
  • New threads will not be visible until approved by a moderator.

  • Welcome to the forum!
    You must activate your account in order to post and view all forum content
    Please check your email inbox & spam folders for our activation email, then follow the link to validate your email address.
    Contact Us if you are having difficulty posting or viewing forum content.
  • You are viewing our forum as a guest, with limited access.
    By joining you will gain full access to thousands of Videos, Pictures & Much More.
    Membership is absolutely FREE! Registration is FAST & SIMPLE.
    Register Today to join the first, most comprehensive and friendliest communities of nude celebrity fans on the net!

Bush's War on Porn

Texan

The Gunhand
Staff Alumn
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
1,332
On May 23, 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order that said, "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

It does go deeper than we know. Hell almost all members of this forum were not even breathing air when ECHELON was created during the cold war.

Kiddie porn is bad and if the DOJ has to obtain search records to put away those sick bastards then so be it.
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
Tex, I'd like to know what law you're referring to. I have the feeling it's the one he's ignoring that says he has to get a judge to sign off within 72 hours.

But the fact is, even a right wing religious zelaot like Ashcroft couldn't justify Bush's spying on citizens. And my point is, I don't believe it stops at child pornographers and terrorists. Mark my words, he's spying on all sorts of "enemies". This guy's out of control.
 

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
704
Preferred,

I'm not sure, but I think the law Tex is referring to is the one that created the FISA court. You know, the one GWB says he doesn't need! And you're absolutely correct with this statement,

"I don't believe it stops at child pornographers and terrorists. Mark my words, he's spying on all sorts of "enemies".

Thats why I said in an earlier post,

"This clown is starting to get as bad as Nixon."

Although, I'm thinking now, that he may be worse.
 

Texan

The Gunhand
Staff Alumn
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
1,332
How bout we go back in time...

During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use its super-secret Echelon surveillance program to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade, NewsMax.com has learned.

In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence.

"We have a triple and limited objective," the former intelligence chief told the French paper. "To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business."




And here is a little more on the subject...

During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.

The New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."

But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."

NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.

The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."

One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Still, the Times repeatedly insists that NSA surveillance under Bush had been unprecedented, at one point citing anonymously an alleged former national security official who claimed: "This is really a sea change. It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."


I guess it was okay when the Clinton Administration did it. Don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house.
 

utfan27

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Texan said:
How bout we go back in time...

During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use its super-secret Echelon surveillance program to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade, NewsMax.com has learned.

In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence.

"We have a triple and limited objective," the former intelligence chief told the French paper. "To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business."


Why Texan, don't you know that anything Bush had done or ever will do is evil? Never mind the fact Clinton did it, that's all just unimportant details. Everything wrong with the world today is Bush's fault. Hurricanes, coal mine disasters, terrorism, heck even if you get a hang nail... all Bush's fault.

And here is a little more on the subject...

During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.

The New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."

But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."

NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.

The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."

One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Still, the Times repeatedly insists that NSA surveillance under Bush had been unprecedented, at one point citing anonymously an alleged former national security official who claimed: "This is really a sea change. It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."


I guess it was okay when the Clinton Administration did it. Don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house.


Why Texan, don't you know that everything is Bush's fault ? Never mind the fact Clinton ordered spying ... just details. Hurricanes, coal mine disasters, terrorism, heck if you get a hang nail... all Bush's fault; and anybody that voted for him is just a crazy neo-con that wants God shoved down everyone's throat.
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
Texan said:
I guess it was okay when the Clinton Administration did it. Don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house.

I guess I'm a Clinton fan and will defend everything he did? Not sure where that's written in my remarks. In fact I'm interested Tex. What's your source?

I don't condone it no matter what Pres does it. Clinton, Bush I or Bush II. You've used the R Limbaugh defense. "We can't defend Bush so let's point out how sleazy Clinton was."

My issue is this. I get the strong feeling that Bush and his followers want certainty. They're right about things, and the rest of us are all wrong. It's that good vs evil mentality that only has room for two options, no shades of gray.

Because they know they're right, and have God on their side, the rest of the world is wrong and should be ridiculed when they don't want to go to Iraq to get rid of WMD's. Because they're right they find a way that we are suddenly not subject to the Geneva convention. Because they're right, they can set everything aside and fly to Florida to change the law and intervene in a family drama they know absolutely nothing about. Because they're right we can detain prisoners without due process. Because they're right they can wiretap without getting a judge's approval. Because they're right, they can get info from Google on the off chance we might find something illegal.

When they know they're right, the law doesn't matter.

Seriously Tex, I'd like to know your source on the Clinton info.
 

Texan

The Gunhand
Staff Alumn
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
1,332
Sources are stated in the post.

DOJ only requested the court order for google after they refused to provide the information after MSN, Yahoo and AOL complied with the request.

Hell here is a section out of their privacy policy

We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request, (b) enforce applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations thereof, (c) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues, or (d) protect against imminent harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public as required or permitted by law.
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
Tex, I have an answer for that but...let's face it, we aren't going to convince each other. I see no reason to keep throwing things at each other. I just don't trust Bush and his judgements about many things, you do.

It all has nothing to do with Clinton. If we hadn't gotten bogged down with what he did with his croooked little dick, we might have had some focus on his shortcomings that really mattered.

utfan27 said:
Hurricanes, coal mine disasters, terrorism, heck if you get a hang nail... all Bush's fault; and anybody that voted for him is just a crazy neo-con that wants God shoved down everyone's throat.

utfan, sure would make for a simplier world if I'd said all that wouldn't it? I have reasons I don't trust Bush, and you only addressed the things you wish I had said.
 

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
704
Tex,

I think everyone around here agrees that child pornographers and molesters should have their balls cut off (at least). But, it seems to me, there are some pretty good methods of getting at these guys. Just about every local jurisdiction around the country now has a small unit conducting stings to catch these people and they seem to be pretty effective. Have they caught them all? Of course not, and they never will, but that seems to be a good way of getting to the heart of the problem.

But what this administration is doing, if you value your privacy, goes way too far! IF they were only spying on communications between US nationals and foreign terrorists, why not use FISA? I saw some statistics the other day which suggested that, since 1978 (the year the FISA court began) the feds have asked for about 19,000 wiretaps with only about 5 denied! Seems to me thats pretty much a rubber stamp to get a legal wiretap.

No, there's something else going on here. There is a reason why one of the FISA court judges resigned in protest of this. And theres a reason why the whistle blower has come forward (Gee, imagine that, wonder why Karl Rove doesn't do the same). I hope we find out all the details soon and I'm 90% sure we'll find out they have been spying on all of us.
 

Supafly

Barely Ever Here
Staff Alumn
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Messages
4,004
Reaction score
255
As a Republician this shit is starting to make me ashamed. If the party doesn't stop this insanity I might even end up liberal.
 

Cman

Exp0sed Board Member
Staff member
Staff Alumn
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
599
Supafly said:
As a Republician this shit is starting to make me ashamed. If the party doesn't stop this insanity I might even end up liberal.
you don't seem very conservative to me lol. are you in the center?

personally, i'm fairly centrist. i'm not a bible basher or a dirty hippy. somewhere in between
 

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
704
Supafly said:
As a Republician this shit is starting to make me ashamed. If the party doesn't stop this insanity I might even end up liberal.

Supa,

I'm glad to hear you say that as this is REALLY, REALLY dangerous. If they get away with this we're all in a lot of trouble. Since your a Republican, you really need to make your views known. The only problem with that is, given what else is going on at the moment (domestic spying), you'd probably wind up on someones enemies list.

Jeez, who would have believed that in 2006 we're getting darn close to 1933 Germany and 1953 McCarthyism?
 

Preferred User

Engorged Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
659
Reaction score
554
Supafly said:
If the party doesn't stop this insanity I might even end up liberal.

You don't have to be a liberal to be against this stuff. You hear Bush's daddy supporting him on this? I haven't. Even Ashcroft (a Bible thunping right winger if ever there was such a thing) told him he wasn't comfortable with the domestic surveilance. And I know many good Republicans that thought the whole Teri Shaivo thing was a massive government invasion into something that didn't need the government at all.

Invading American's private lives is not a Republican value.
 

mindido

Respected Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,829
Reaction score
704
Texan said:

Oh man Tex,

That article is so full of holes that even I can punch through a few of them.

"AT and other blogs have already demonstrated that doing so is (a) well within the letter of the law"

If that were true, why is there even a debate? I have seen many constitutional scholars and law professors recently who say the exact opposite. Last night, I was watching CSPAN and they televised a panel discussing the issue. One of the panelists, Jonathan Turley, a Prof. of constitutional law at George Washington University, had an interesting take on the situation. He suggested that the administration has known all along that this is illegal and were initially afraid of the consequences when the NY Times article was published.

They then decided to try and turn the argument around and make this "inherant presidential authority" claim. That claim thus puts the President above the law. And since we've seen this President make that same claim elsewhere (the "signing" of the torture act a few weeks ago), that suggests that this President does view himself as being "above the law".

I could go on and on with your article. The one thing I do know is that we don't need a President who feels he's "above the law".
 
Top