Agency First Acted on Its Own to Broaden Spying, Files Show

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jan 3, 2006.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    i'm not sure which is more frightening -- an agency operating outside the law under presidential directive, or on its own.
     
  2. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #2
    So, even though he authorized it, they're going to use this to suddenly say he never did? "The Homeland Security agency acted on it's own" is going to be the next "the CIA gave us bad intelligence" and "local government dropped the ball during Katrina". So much for this administration's promise of responsibility. I've been reading about this on Media Matters too, and the media is already making it look like Bush did nothing wrong.

    No one is answering the obvious question. It's so easy to obtain a warrant. Even after the fact. Why didn't they?
     
  3. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #3
    I don't think the question has been answerwd because the legality is still in question. There is no black and white answer to this, which is why the congress let it continue. Don't you think if it were illegal, Pelosi and Rockerfellar would have done something about it?
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Surprise. The spying goes much farther than we know.

    One of these days we're going to find out Bush spied on protest groups and political opponents. If Bush is willing to cop to a little illegal spying, imagine how much more of it he must have done...
     
  5. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #5
    Aren't most of them saying they didn't know it was this bad? Maybe to cover their own butts, but what could the Dems have done even if they did know? And what question about legality? It's simple. There are secret judges that will give you a warrant to do what he has done. Even after the fact. All you need to do is give a reason. Why did he not use this procedure that's in place specifically for these types of situations? It's the cover up that's the real crime, even if the act is disputable.

    Which I'm kinda surprised so many people are disputing.
     

Share This Page