George W. Bush: NSA Surveillance Is No Problem Because Civil Liberties Are Guaranteed
from the say-what-now? dept
Former President George W. Bush commented on a variety of subjects in an interview with CNN, but of most interest to me was his comments on the NSA surveillance leaks. It's well known that many of the programs started under his administration, and apparently, he insists that the programs are fine because civil liberties are "guaranteed.""I think there needs to be a balance, and as the president explained, there is a proper balance," Bush said.Of course, the various leaks to date suggest that's not even close to true. But, really, what does that even mean? How are they "guaranteed"? You can't just say that sort of thing, you have to actually make sure it's true, and so far there's been little to no evidence to support that claim. For civil liberties to be guaranteed there would need to be a clear belief and reverence for things like the 4th Amendment. Instead, we have secret FISA court rulings that reinterpret the plain language of the Patriot Act to mean something different than how it reads in English. How is that "guaranteeing" civil liberties? It sounds a lot more like redefining words so that the administration can "claim" that civil liberties are protected by making sure that any that aren't actually protected are simply written out of what counts as "civil liberties."
Asked about an NSA program that tracks people's Internet activity, Bush said, "I put that program in place to protect the country. One of the certainties was that civil liberties were guaranteed."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: civil liberties, george w. bush, nsa surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Speaking of plain language being reinterpreted
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nigel
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G.W.G.
Or maybe Bonzo. Bedtime, Bonzo!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guaranteed, using the official NSA meaning perhaps
He and his buddies seem to have no problem changing the interpretation to obtain the effect they desire without changing the written words.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guaranteed indeed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike,
One could easily demand the same answers from you. How, exactly, is the Fourth Amendment being violated? How is there no evidence that the Fourth Amendment is being upheld? Can't wait to hear your answers. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
that is all,
Nigel
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I want to hear why you think this wholesale spying on American Citizens is legal. Or how you think the Patriot Act is legal flying in the face of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that didn't use weasel words to say what they meant.
Your lack of response which is your usual pattern tells why everyone down votes your bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130628/01171923655/why-nsas-surveillance-program-is-un constitutional.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the proper balance
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Clean the slate
War on terror - never ending. There will always be someone with another viewpoint willing to do stupid things.
Let's call it what it is, a police state being run by THE WORST CONGRESS in the history of the United States. I for one do not trust ANYONE in government, especially those unelected, unaccountable intelligence agency folks who do these things in the name of "what" what, please spell it out in plain statements, what are we being protected from that needs this level of intrusion and if we "do need" this level of intrusion then the concern isn't a few asshats communicating with enemies, the flaw is that the government has gone rogue and isn't worth supporting.
Vote the lot of congress out, all of em. Clean the slate, then clean out the intelligence agencies...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Deliverance of Bush
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Or anywhere else where there might be witnesses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This again?
I don't know where his memory went, but I do distinctly remember one very compelling incident where his Attorney General, John Ashcroft,(while seriously ill in the hospital) refused outright to sign off on one program because he himself did not believe it was legal:
"In March 2004, the Justice Department under Ashcroft ruled that the Stellar Wind domestic intelligence program was illegal. The day after the ruling, Ashcroft became critically ill with acute pancreatitis. President Bush sent his White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card Jr. to Ashcroft's hospital bed. They wanted him to sign a document reversing the Justice Department's ruling. But the semi-conscious Ashcroft refused to sign; Acting Attorney General James Comey and Jack Goldsmith, head of the Office of Legal Counsel for DOJ, were there to back him up. Bush reauthorized the operation by executive decision, over formal Justice Department objections."
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: the proper balance
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It LOOKS like english, SOUNDS like english, but it's meaning is NOT English.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Speaking of plain language being reinterpreted
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And before you say that Iraq *was* a threat to anyone (like Israel), remember, Iran and Syria are still standing. So is North Korea, which *does* have WMD. But they whooped your arses. (And in the interests of fairness, I believe ours too.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Even Clinton had his dumb moments, such as DOMA. But that was probably a total lack of choice, I suspect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perhaps President Bush should elaborate.
So perhaps our former president needs to specify what is guaranteed of our civil rights, and how are we remunerated in the event that those rights are denied. Do we get a lollipop as we are hauled off to jail?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The truth is, they have not. In fact, my civil liberties have been run over by a huge bulldozer known as the NSA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My refridgerator was guaranteed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Speaking of plain language being reinterpreted
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
QED.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wuh...wuh..wuh....courage, yeah!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Equally inane is the belief by those with Bush Derangement Syndrome that Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone, but let's set that aside for a minute and address Iran, Syria, and North Korea... The fact of the matter is, none of those nations had a ceasefire agreement with the United States, Great Britain and the UN, for which it had been in constant violation.
Iraq had such a ceasefire agreement in the form of UN Resolution #687. The mere act of violating that ceasefire agreement placed Iraq in jeopardy from military reprisals for its recalcitrant behavior. The real oddity is that the United States and Great Britain allowed Iraq to thwart their will, as expressed in Resolution #687.
Lastly, I think Saddam Hussein is so proud of the "arses" he "whooped"... In fact, he's dying to tell the world he kicked our butts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. When the invasion of Iraq was being sold to us, the only justification given was that we were pursuing the 9/11 attackers and those who supported them.
The broader justification came much later, after it became too obvious that Iraq wasn't one of those.
It is not clear that Iraq violated 687, but even if they did, doing so did not automatically give the US or UK the right to attack them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bush Derangement Syndrome
Bush burned a CIA agent (which is classically really bad form) in the process of trying to frame Iraq as a greater threat than it was. We knew Hussein didn't have nukes. We even knew why he didn't want nukes. Hussein did have chemical weapons because we sold them to him. He wasn't supplying terror groups because Iraq couldn't afford to; they were still rebuilding from the Gulf War.
In Iraqi Freedom we were supposed to be in and out within three months. Instead it took eight years and about a trillion dollars (not including Afghanistan). Iraqi Freedom was exactly the quagmire that we feared it would be. It was also regarded as an unjust war by pretty much every war ethicist across the planet, just not Bush's Evangelical advisers.
A trillion dollars. I'd say our grandchilden's kids would be paying for it, but that presumes it's even possible to pay it down anymore.
If we are going to play world police, there's a way to do it, and Iraqi Freedom wasn't it. We have a policy as a superpower called proportional response: as a nation respectful of life, the US understands (or rather, once did understand) that the civilians in these belligerent nations are not responsible for the actions of the despots that govern them. And if the cost of Iraqi Freedom is an indicator, we so can't afford to play world peace until we've well resolved issues here at home.
To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I don't think Bush Derangement Syndrome means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really now? Please do show us the news articles, op-ed from pro-war sources or any statement from the US government that categorically stated the perpetrators of 9-11 were in Iraq and we must chase them down.
Statements that some terrorists may take refuge in Iraq don't count.
"The broader justification came much later, after it became too obvious that Iraq wasn't one of those."
Prove it... I can actually give links to articles to support my premise, can you?
April of 2002 -- http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html
March of 2003 -- http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/Conflict_Iraq/linkstoTerr.cfm
October of 2002 -- http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/iraq/gulf_war.htm
All you need to do is provide one article to refute my point.
"It is not clear that Iraq violated 687, but even if they did, doing so did not automatically give the US or UK the right to attack them."
Now you've strayed into "la la land". The "No Fly Zones" were created in the 1990's, because Saddam was violating the ceasefire agreement to not use his military to attack Iraqi Kurds and Iraqi Shia. In response, the US and the UK set up and maintain those "No Fly Zones" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones
Saddam Hussein constantly violated the ceasefire agreement, and those violations were the casus belli for all the profound military actions taken against Iraq throughout the 1990's by the Clinton Administration.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bush Derangement Syndrome
You can't prove that statement.
"Bush burned a CIA agent (which is classically really bad form) in the process of trying to frame Iraq as a greater threat than it was. We knew Hussein didn't have nukes. We even knew why he didn't want nukes. Hussein did have chemical weapons because we sold them to him. He wasn't supplying terror groups because Iraq couldn't afford to; they were still rebuilding from the Gulf War."
As soon as I see statements like this, I know I'm dealing with someone who is factually challenged.
* Bush didn't "burn" Valerie Plame. If anyone "burned" her, she did it herself recommending her husband for something he wasn't actually qualified to do, and then saying one thing about his findings to media circles, but another to government officials.
* The argument wasn't what he had, but his intent. That's the thing it seems those with Bush Derangement Syndrome actually want to avoid. Most all the talking points that Bush officials gave stressed the idea that it was a threat we didn't want to see come to full realization.
* The United States never sold the nation of Iraq chemical weapons. The most that Iraq acquired from the shores of the USA were "dual use" materials, in the form of oscilloscopes, multi-meters, computers and other electronics used in developing weapons. As well, Iraq attained a variety of biological samples from American businesses that provided those samples to colleges, universities and private researchers.
"In Iraqi Freedom we were supposed to be in and out within three months. Instead it took eight years and about a trillion dollars (not including Afghanistan). Iraqi Freedom was exactly the quagmire that we feared it would be. It was also regarded as an unjust war by pretty much every war ethicist across the planet, just not Bush's Evangelical advisers."
Nothing you've said in the above paragraph can be supported.
"If we are going to play world police, there's a way to do it, and Iraqi Freedom wasn't it. We have a policy as a superpower called proportional response: as a nation respectful of life, the US understands (or rather, once did understand) that the civilians in these belligerent nations are not responsible for the actions of the despots that govern them. And if the cost of Iraqi Freedom is an indicator, we so can't afford to play world peace until we've well resolved issues here at home."
If you wish to have a debate about the proper way to be "world police", be my guest. My answer is, no... we don't want to be world police.
"To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I don't think Bush Derangement Syndrome means what you think it means."
Based on your response, it's exactly what I think it means... A person so crazed by hate for George W. Bush you'll spin any sort of story, misrepresent any opinion, misstate any fact, or just plain lie through your teeth if it serves the purpose of attacking GW Bush, his supporters and his policies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keep calm and carry on
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"George W. Bush: NSA Surveillance Is No Problem.."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, because I never claimed that.
What point do you want me to support? BTW, none of the articles you link to are at odds with what I'm saying.
I'm not sure I understand your point about the no-fly zones. Are you saying that because Iraq violated the cease-fire agreements in the '90s, that gave the US permission to invade a decade later?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You said this; "Bullshit. When the invasion of Iraq was being sold to us, the only justification given was that we were pursuing the 9/11 attackers and those who supported them."
Ergo, you're stating the ONLY reason given for invasion was the pursuit of 9-11 co-conspirators and al Qaeda members.
So, without taking rhetorical license, let me restate the query; show us the news articles, op-ed from pro-war sources or any statement from the US government that shows "[w]hen the invasion of Iraq was being sold to us, the only justification given was that we were pursuing the 9/11 attackers and those who supported them."
As for the "No Fly Zones", you stated, "It is not clear that Iraq violated 687."
It's clear from the documentary trail, that the UN thought Iraq was in violation of Resolution 687.
1992: http://tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/iraq.13w.html
1992: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1992/921123-255043.htm
1998: http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html
199 8: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,10376,00.html
So, you ARE wrong, it's very clear Iraq violated 687.
On to your dismissive, "even if they did, doing so did not automatically give the US or UK the right to attack them."
What is a ceasefire?
A dictionary definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cease-fire
Wikipedia has a nice definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceasefire
So, since there was a formal treaty in the form of UN Resolution 687, we now must determine everything else from that, and the question that must be asked is, does the resolution prevent the belligerants from resuming hostilities if one side violates that ceasefire?
The resolution doesn't specifically say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My refridgerator was guaranteed
A guarantee is only as good as the word of the person giving it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]