Bring It On!

We Only Spy On Terrorists…And Protesters

January 26th, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |

President Bush and VP Cheney have repeatedly said that domestic spying is only done to catch terrorists and their communications in the US. They have defended their domestic spying practices as ‘vital to national security’ and have gone to great lengths to defend even the illegal activities they have undertaken.

But they’re just trying to keep America from being attacked right? And they’re only going after terrorists, right?
Wrong.

According to documents obtained by the ACLU, at least 186 anti-war protests have been monitored by the Pentagon’s domestic surveillance program, collecting nearly 3000 reports on American citizens who are neither terrorists nor doing anything illegal. In fact, the groups being actively monitored are primarily groups that are against the Bush War in Iraq. Groups like Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and Military Families Speak Out. Groups filled not with berserker jihadists, but instead filled with honorable American former service members and their families. People who have fought for this country or lost family members in this stupid and ill-fated war in Iraq.

And despite Pentagon officials claims that they aren’t interested in domestic groups (uh-huh), and that they aren’t monitoring them any more (yeah, right), other federal agencies like the DHS and FBI are keeping a watchful eye on these most dangerous of Americans.

Add this to the phone tapping and e-mail mining, library record checking, and postal surveillance, and by golly, we’re right there in that Orwell novel. Meanwhile, the real terrorists are living and planning in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Yeah, they’re only spying on the terrorists…it’s just that this administration considers anyone not falling in line with their idiocy to be a terrorist, a group that now includes over 60% of all Americans.

Boy, I feel safer everyday.

[tag]domestic+spying, Pentagon, ACLU, protesters, terrorism[/tag]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 15 Responses to “We Only Spy On Terrorists…And Protesters”

  2. By SteveIL on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    The news item doesn’t say whether or not warrants were ever obtained to monitor these groups.  Code Pink (mentioned in the piece) has known ties to Castro, so anything they get involved with may be monitored with a warrant.

    The article also notes that a military recruiter may have been shoved by members of “Veterans for Peace” in 2005, although the group says it was by people who weren’t in the group.  Recruiters have been targets for vandalism by many of these so-called “peace” groups, and also may have been monitored with valid warrants.

    To correct a few other things, the “phone-tapping” and email mining has yet to be proven unconstitutional, as ACLU v. NSA is in appeals, plus the original ruling does not adequately give standing to the “plaintiffs”, which includes the ACLU. 

    Regarding library record checking, if it’s the case I believe being referred, that has already been proven to have been a fabrication.

    Postal surveillance.  This was discussed before.  There was never any law that stopped this.  Bush’s signing statement on the recent legislation stated it was done not only for national security, but for hazardous materials reasons.

    Tom Baker said:

    Meanwhile, the real terrorists are living and planning in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    You forgot Iraq.  There are Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq.  There is an AUMF that says we can kill them anywhere, including Iraq.  Even if they weren’t there in great numbers before, they’re there now.  And they have to be destroyed.  We killed a bunch in Somalia, legally and properly.  Somebody should mention this to Congress as well.

  3. By 4Truth on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    SteveIL - There are Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. Now that Saddam is not there. Saddam hated Al Qaeda more then us because they could overthrow him SO GWB did Al Qeada & Iran a Favor by getting rid of Saddam and Screwed the American people.

  4. By SteveIL on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    As I’ve said, ain’t buying it.  He would have crushed Al Qaeda or other Islamist groups had any tried to overthrow him, but he had no problem funding groups that attacked his enemies, provided he could keep it secret.  He openly supported Hamas as long as they kept targeting Israel.  There’s no reason to believe he wouldn’t help fund Al Qaeda in order to help them target Saudi Arabia and the US, or anybody else for that matter.  History is too full of this kind of double-dealing not to believe it was true.  And any official reports that our government has put out on the subject is incomplete until all the captured Iraqi data has been mined.

  5. By Jersey McJones on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    SteveIl, as a voracious consumer of history, I have to say that what you’re assuming here doesn’t have much precendence.  Half-assed dictators like Saddam avoid characters like OBL.  More likely OBL would be covertly supported by the more powerful rulers like the Arabian royals.  It’s the quid pro quo.  For example, the Sauds stood to gain from supporting OBL to keep him off their backs.  Same for Mussaraf.  Saddam had no quid pro quo for OBL.  History shows that the only time Saddam supported “terrorist” groups was when it was at a dsitance and conveniant for him to garner some support on the Arab Street.  Unless you could show me some advantage Saddam could gain from the Al Qaeda types, I “ain’t buying it” from you.

    JMJ

  6. By SteveIL on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    Jersey,

    The idea that bin Laden and Hussein being erstwhile allies CONTAINS plenty of precedence.  Hitler and Stalin.  Britain and the Ottoman Empire.  Prussia and Austria.  Romans and Goths.  Athenians and Spartans.  And the list goes on.

    Bin Laden’s target has been Saudi Arabia, and the destruction of the Saudi royal family and government.  A few may support him, but not the vast majority, and not considering the attacks he’s made on that country.  We were in the way because we were the ones protecting the Saudis, and it was financially beneficial to both our countries.  The Saudis funding bin Laden and his terrorists (as opposed to others they do fund) would have threatened their more important financial arrangement with the US.  Al Qaeda attacking us and the Saudis wouldn’t have been an issue to Saddam as we were both his enemies.  If bin Laden did take Arabia, then there would have been a good chance Saddam might have turned on him.  Neither Saddam or bin Laden ever got that chance (thank God).  But don’t think that because Saddam distrusted Islamists in his own country, it didn’t mean they couldn’t be useful to each other outside of Iraq.  Ideology means squat.  It’s all about money and power.

    Same with Pakistan and the Taliban.  The Taliban were being propped up by Musharraf and Al Qaeda, and I’m sure Musharraf was benefitting.  But I doubt he had any idea Al Qaeda was going to plan 9/11.  He turned on both the Taliban and Al Qaeda as soon as he was ordered to, because he wanted to maintain his power.  Unfortunately, he doesn’t back it up very well.  Which is why the US went great guns to get an alliance with India, a country that could help us, and themselves, keep an eye on Musharraf and Pakistan.  People say Bush is an idiot; this US-India alliance was a brilliant move, and for the reasons I just highlighted.

    Have a nice weekend.

  7. By 4Truth on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    SteveIL - “The idea that bin Laden and Hussein being erstwhile allies CONTAINS plenty of precedence.”  That is why you are a Dufass. SteveIL has NO proof that OBL & Hussein were allies BUT SteveIL & GWB say they do & that is why American soldiers are dying in Iraq.

  8. By steve on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    4truth…

    That is NOT what he said.  He said Saddam and bin Laden had a common enemy and if bin Laden would have attacked Saudi Arabia first,  instead of the US, it might have turned Saddam against him.

    And what he said, is not why soldiers are dying.  Ok? 

  9. By Traveling fool on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply

    i’m glad you feel safer now. if only we could give up more freedom to get liberty. damn terrorers and protesterers.

  10. By Chris on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply

    [Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
    THE PRESIDENT: I can’t make that claim.

    THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

    The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.

     

    There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.

    The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate’s Intelligence Committee on Friday.

    So your choice is to believe GW with no evidence or everyone else.

     

  11. By ken grandlund on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply

    Thanks for the links Chris. It is hard for some people to admit they’ve been deceived in such a major way. Sometimes, even the evidence doesn’t help. But I appreciate your efforts to end this sidetrack when the original post had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. SteveIL got sidetracked by my statements about al-Qaeda being in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I didn’t forget Iraq. I left them out on purpose. I wanted to avoid this little side trip into tangential areas as the focus of the post was on domestic spying on non-terrorists.

  12. By g anton on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply

    Two short points.

    The first is that Bush is isolated, universally defamed, and well hated, The weed of stupidity bears bitter fruit. He’s down and on his way out. Praise the Lord for his small favors.

    Secondly, it is against the law to lie to the FBI, but there is no law that you have to talk to the sons-of-a-bitch. Don’t do it under any circumstances–just tell them to go get F***ed. If nobody talks to them, their reason to exist is pretty well nullified.

  13. By Voidling on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply

    I asked Yoda about President Bush his reply was…
    “Presidents can not guide you, look within yourself there the force can be found.”
    Asked about Iraq his reply was..
    “A powerful ally is the Force. Life creates it makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us.
    Asked what he thought of George Bush his reply was.
    Your Question concerns the temporary. Eternal is the way of the Force.

    I think living in America is scary at the moment gone is your freedom to express and think for yourself, you are controlled by fear fuelled by your government.

    Bless you all
    Voidling (not an American)

  14. By Jersey McJones on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply

    God, I just can’t believe some people still don’t get why Saddam was not involved with Al Qaeda!!!  And especially, after 9/11, it would have been suicidally inconceivable for Saddam to have gotten into bed with them!!!  “Common Enemies”???  That’s all you guys got???  That’s friggin’ grade school level debate!!!

    JMJ

  1. 2 Trackback(s)

  2. Jan 26, 2007: Pollywogs! » Blog Archive » I like the wit at this place:
  3. Jun 25, 2007: follow heart

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel