Big Brother too big?

[Pure_Evil]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/02/09/google.desktop.ap/index.html


Bush administration is demanding to know what kind of information people have been trying to find through Google's search engine.

:mad: :down:

[FUS1ON]

Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Time Warner Inc.'s America Online already have surrendered some of the information requested by the Bush administration. All three companies have said their cooperation didn't violate users' privacy.


If it doesn't violate a person's privacy, I don't see anything wrong with it ... yet.

What they ask for tomorrow is another story if they start logging IP info. to certain keywords. Which could be a two headed monster that serves both the good and bad. Good in the sence that it could head off terroristist attacks like the one mentioned in the news just yesterday and bad if they carry the seraches too far and start invading the 'average Joe's privacy on their own without passing laws to do so. I'm 100% sure they will be looking for terrorist, anarchist, etc... types of information so i'm not worried ..... for now.

Also it's hard to get the gist of an article from just one sentence from it, but you have managed to make me have preconceived notions about what it was going to be about before I even read it and the story is about much more than the government wanting information.

Besides if they wanted to know what the most popular searches for items/words/etc ... on Google they are listed each year.
2004 - http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist2004.html
2005 - http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2005.html
2006 (so far) - http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html

[T I K]

Are you really surprised :confused:

Our own US Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales appointed by none other than Pres Bush himself, has yet to state publicly he finds anything wrong, illegal, with anything Pres Bush and his administration has already done, or endorsed and advocated in the name of National Security!

It would seem, by the present and past Bush Administrations actions, that the only illegal or illegal activities, that would or do happen, are only commited by those outside of a sanctimonious Bushdom!! :rolleyes:

[FUS1ON]

If Bush is so bad and the things he has done is so wrong, then why has he not been impeached?

[Pure_Evil]

because Cheney is worse?

[FUS1ON]

Lol :D

[T I K]

Sho, you would probably have to ask the US Attorney General's office to get an official answer to that question. ;)

IMO are there any impeachable offenses committed by Bush, yes !! What actually is wrong or Illegal in the name of National Defense ?? He interprets his powers he was given after 9/11 with no oversight or with little to no impunity!! Prosecutable offenses, are easier stated than actually prosecuted!

But in the mean time you can rest assured Bushdom is doing everything in its power or even outside it's powers to insure that anything he or his admin does will be legally beyond reproach aka. prosecutable, even if it has to rewrite or in most cases, (by biased legal rulings) that just legally circumvent, The Bill of Rights or the US Constitution !:thumbs: Not to worry, its for all our own good!! And who in the US Govt, Supreme Court to Pres. Bush on down, has ever or would ever think to abuse its legal authority!! With no oversight or ??'s of legality, should we all sleep well and accept whatever ?? :confused:

[FUS1ON]

I asked you guys because I don't see the US Attorney General's office speaking out against Bush on here or anywhere for that matter. I'm not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to politics but common sense tells me that if he has not been impeached, then he has done nothing wrong .... except in certain people's eyes.

[Pure_Evil]

I asked you guys because I don't see the US Attorney General's office speaking out against Bush on here or anywhere for that matter. I'm not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to politics but common sense tells me that if he has not been impeached, then he has done nothing wrong .... except in certain people's eyes.

you could say the same for Clinton then, and on a different level, but using the same logic O.J. Simson, Michael Jackson, etc.

[T I K]

Thats ok Sho, most impeachable offenses by a US Pres's are rarely pursued or are even less rarely prosecuted !!;) And when you consider Cheney as his replacement :eek:

This excerpt taken from "Insight on the News" by Stephen Goode

"The question is whether or not the offense is worth setting aside the previous election," says John Kessel, professor emeritus of political science at Ohio State University. "What is an impeachable offense? Something that threatens the Constitution itself, and it has to be serious enough to warrant putting a new man -- the vice president -- in office and requiring him to create a new administration in the short amount of time available to him."

For Kessel, what would comprise a serious threat to the Constitution? "Iran-Contra comes closer to an impeachable offense," he says. Other examples: "Not providing Congress with the information it needed about foreign policy. Or if the president reached a secret agreement with a foreign power."

[FUS1ON]

In reply to PE's post - I'll give you that point, the difference is that those people have actually been under investigation for wrong doings and some have even been arrested. Although the three of them may be walking around free today, in certain people's opinion's they still feel they were guilty and got off.

[T I K]

An interesting read ;) DOJ.Response.AUMF.final.pdf (http://balkin.blogspot.com/DOJ.Response.AUMF.final.pdf)

[Pure_Evil]

In reply to PE's post - I'll give you that point, the difference is that those people have actually been under investigation for wrong doings and some have even been arrested. Although the three of them may be walking around free today, in certain people's opinion's they still feel they were guilty and got off. Flat out Sho, I despise Bush for the way the country has deteriorated under his watch. I'm pissed at how he's handled and not handled the Bin Laden family. I'm pissed that many Americans died, and even more are crippled in our war with Iraq that was based upon lies by our government, led by Bush/ Cheney.

Here's theory for you. In RI year 2003, maybe you'll remember the night club fire that killed over 200 http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/21/deadly.nightclub.fire/ (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/21/deadly.nightclub.fire/)

The band's manager, just pleaded guilty to 100 counts of involuntary manslaughter. Now, since Bush sent all those troops to die in Iraq, based upon weapons of mass destruction (there were none) and ties to aiding Alqueda in the 9/11 plot (there was no proof of that either) just maybe the Bush Administration should be held accountable? Instead, Haliburten ( ties to Cheney and Rice) are making a ton of proffit.

Yes, I'm making a reach, a big one, but using your same logic.

Keep in mind, I'm not a republican or a democrat, just 1 pissed off American!

[Oscar(WCFD)]

An interesting read ;) DOJ.Response.AUMF.final.pdf (http://balkin.blogspot.com/DOJ.Response.AUMF.final.pdf)

From what I have read on this the President has the power to do what he did granted to him in the Constitution.
They can pass all the laws they want but they cant take away the Presidents powers that are granted to him in the Constitution. The only way that can be done is if they ammend the Constitution, and congress doesn't have the power to do it on its own. The precedent has been set by the past uses of of that power and has held up in court.

another interesting read
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf

[T I K]

I also find this another interesting read, especially if you ever felt the least thankful or even proud of the thought and consideration, that the US Forefathers put forth and signed onto when they wrote the The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.....


Bush is at war with Americanism
By DAVID MICHAEL GREEN
First published: Saturday, January 28, 2006

Forget the war on terrorism. President Bush is engaged in a full-blown war on Americanism. Ridiculous? Unthinkable? The idea that an American president could epitomize anti-Americanism is certainly counterintuitive. But it's a lot less shocking if we consider just what defines this country's core values.

And if that list includes such essentials as freedom, responsibility, justice, humanity, respect and fairness -- and doesn't it? -- if that's what it means to be American, then George Bush is indeed at war with Americanism.

Each new revelation forces patriotic Americans to reconsider how much of ourselves -- our liberties, our reputation, our dignity -- have now been sacrificed on the altar of the Bush presidency. Each week brings fresh outrages. Torture, wiretaps, planted news stories, secret prisons, one unmasked war justification after another. This country faces some very real threats, but must we give up everything that makes America, well, America in order to live safely within our borders?

As it turns out, that's a false choice anyhow, since even our security has been diminished by George Bush. The 9/11 commission has flunked him for his preparations against another attack. Meanwhile, he admits a breathtaking disinterest in Osama bin Laden, saying "I am truly not that concerned about him" and "I don't really think about him very much."

Bush he has been similarly unconcerned about North Korean nuclear proliferation on his watch, Hurricane Katrina, and the still unsolved anthrax case. Add these to his Iraq obsession, which has severely diminished our military, and American security has lessened.


Quote:
For this, we've given up two centuries worth of proud honor and traditions?


For this, George Bush has traded away so much of what makes this country great that his presidency can only be described as a war on Americanism.

Consider:

Once, America stood as a proud beacon for human rights. Now we are known for the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition and torture.

Once, we stood foursquare for the rule of law. Now we demolish inconvenient agreements we once promoted -- the Geneva, nuclear nonproliferation and ABM treaties, the International Criminal Court -- and thereby encourage others to follow suit.

Once, America's word was good. Today -- after deceits ranging from WMD, to promised but withdrawn U.N. votes, to shameful lies about former football star Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan -- we are distrusted.

Once, America stood tall against colonialism. Today, with invasion excuses falling like dominoes, most of the world sees us as just another old-fashioned imperialist predator.

Once, we stood for due process of law. Now our President creates his own prisons and courts and denies the accused long sacred rights -- to habeas corpus, an attorney, a speedy trial judged by peers, knowledge of the crime charged, and more.

Once, we were a model for civil liberties. Now, Mr. Bush authorizes himself to conduct illegal wiretaps on Americans while his government monitors everyone from vegans to Quakers, then snoops in libraries to see what we're reading.

Once, we stood for press freedom. Now our tax dollars pay to plant stories and buy off journalists, here and abroad, while our President plots to blow up al Jazeera, all in the name of bringing freedom to the Mideast.

Once, we were a good neighbor. Today, our 5 percent of the world population produces 25 percent of global warming emissions, while the President scuttles the Kyoto Protocol.

For all these reasons and others, world opinion of the United States has sunk precipitously -- as well it should, for this is not the America our Founders had in mind.

And so we must ask, just what will be left of Americanism after George Bush is through with America? And, if the goal is not only preserving our lives, but also our way of life, just who is the true enemy of America and Americanism?

Surely al-Qaida is. Too bad, therefore, that the President doesn't think very much anymore about the folks who brutally attacked us on 9/11.

Surely Saddam Hussein -- who never attacked the United States and never threatened to do so -- was no such enemy, however brutal a dictator he certainly was.

But what of Mr. Bush himself? However counterintuitive, it is hard to reach but one conclusion about a President who has bankrupted America morally, fiscally, and militarily, who has alienated the world and deeply divided his own country, and who has trampled roughshod over our most sacred traditions and liberties, as if he were some sort of self-anointed king.

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...006&TextPage=1

[OUTLAWS WHOCARES]

Anyway you look at it the is ZERO common sense in Wahington.

[T I K]

In the end it comes down to this, any American President is not above the law. He is sworn to uphold the US constitution and its laws, not manipulate it to fit his own agenda. The Congress is there to take any considerations or law changes deemed necessary by him or his administration. And thats called checks and balances !

If George Bush Admin has nothing to conceal or hide then he should release the records to Congress regarding the spying !!

Would that not be prudent for all on the legal implications or violations in matters of ones Privacy and Civil Liberties !! I for one think so. I cant accept sacrificing or scraping the US Constitution and its laws in the name of terrorism or our "National Defense"!! I'm not backing terrorists or seeking to impede our Country's Defense, but there are proper, right and correct legal ways for going about protecting us in the name of "Natiional Defense":thumbs: