Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rove Suggets Warrantless Surveillance Would Have Prevented 9/11

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 09:35 AM
Original message
Rove Suggets Warrantless Surveillance Would Have Prevented 9/11
Wasn't it recently announced that they were doing this BEFORE 9/11, anyway?

Rove Defends Warrantless Surveillance
Thursday August 24, 2006 3:16 AM


TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) - Presidential adviser Karl Rove criticized a federal judge's order for an immediate end to the government's warrantless surveillance program, saying Wednesday such a program might have prevented the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Rove said the government should be free to listen if al-Qaida is calling someone within the U.S.

``Imagine if we could have done that before 9/11. It might have been a different outcome,'' he said.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6034357,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. So would reading your PDBs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. If you rendered Rove's corpse for its rancid lard...
...He still would be utterly worthless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pepperbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
3. yep. just wondering if paying attention to
"Osama Bin Laden determined to strike u.s." would've helped a smidge. Gee, maybe warrentless wire taps wouldn't even be necessary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
4. Funny, I'm pretty sure the legal surveillance we had that could have
prevented 9/11 went ignored. Why is this program any different? Oh yeah, this one allows you political cover for spying on your opponents....sorry I keep forgetting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
5. Yeah, well only if the rest of the US had been spying on Cheney,
Chucklenuts, Condi, and Rumsferatu.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
6. It might have had a different outcome if Bush & Condi would have done
their jobs with all the alerts and warnings that were sent directly to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
7. They were indeed illegally wiretapping before 9/11, elehhhhna
But Rove is the last one to let facts stand in the way of some good propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Exactly. They were conducting illegal wiretaps long before "terrorism was
on the radar". Sort of makes you wonder who they were actually spying on illegally, since it obviously wasn't terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
8. Imagine if the books were opened on IranContra and BCCI. THAT would have
Edited on Thu Aug-24-06 10:08 AM by blm
DEFINITELY prevented a 9-11 event and likely nipped the growing business of terrorism in the bud, by exposing its financiers intent on PROFITTING from its growth.

Karl, the Bin Ladens and the Bush family wouldn't like that too much, would they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
9. Gotta love that retroactive justification for present and future
violations of the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
10. A totalitarian police state would have stopped it to.
Give me liberty OR GIVE ME DEATH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #10
18. How do we know THAT? Even if there WERE a totalitarian state here
(which we are certainly moving that direction) there can be no guarantee of absolute safety. In fact I think a lot more people would be motivated to commit terrorist acts against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
11. Not so fast Pavrovian
Edited on Thu Aug-24-06 11:00 AM by Solly Mack
Bush ignored recommendations from both the Clinton administration and Hart-Rudman on terrorism and bin Laden in particular. FISA was available to Bush the day he took office.

So really, it's a case of Bush not giving a damn what the outgoing President had to say and not giving a damn what the Hart-Rudman report said. And no interest in following the law since legal means were also available to him when it took office.






FISA was in place prior to September 11, 2001

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html



Bush ignores the Hart–Rudman Terrorism Report and claims Cheney will head up an anti-terror task force. A task-force that never materialized.


http://www.avatara.com/operationignore0.html

Excerpt from:

Al Franken's book: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

“Meanwhile, on February 15, 2001, a commission led by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman issued its third and final report on national security. The Hart-Rudman report warned that "mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern'' and said that America was woefully unprepared for a "catastrophic'' domestic terrorist attack and urged the creation of a new federal agency: "A National Homeland Security Agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security” that would include the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, and more than a dozen other government departments and agencies.

The Hart-Rudman Commission had studied every aspect of national security over a period of years and had come to a unanimous conclusion: "This commission believes that the security of the American homeland from the threats of the new century should be the primary national security mission of the U.S. government."

The report generated a great deal of media attention and even a bill in Congress to establish a National Homeland Security Agency. But over at the White House, the Justice Department, and the Pentagon, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Ashcroft, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld decided that the best course of action was not to implement the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, but instead to launch a sweeping initiative dubbed "Operation Ignore."

The public face of Operation Ignore would be an antiterrorism task force led by Vice President Cheney. Its mandate: to pretend to develop a plan to counter domestic terrorist attacks. Bush announced the task force on May 8, 2001, and said that he himself would "periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts." Bush never chaired such a meeting, though. Probably because Cheney's task force never actually met. Operation Ignore was in full swing.”


Bush Authorized Domestic Spying

*and info concerning spying prior to September 11.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021_pf.html

"For more than four years, the NSA tasked other military intelligence agencies to assist its broad-based surveillance effort directed at people inside the country suspected of having terrorist connections, even before Bush signed the 2002 order that authorized the NSA program, according to an informed U.S. official."

Tinker, Tailor, Miner, Spy
http://www.slate.com/id/2133564/

"A former telecom executive told us that efforts to obtain call details go back to early 2001, predating the 9/11 attacks and the president's now celebrated secret executive order. The source, who asked not to be identified so as not to out his former company, reports that the NSA approached U.S. carriers and asked for their cooperation in a "data-mining" operation, which might eventually cull "millions" of individual calls and e-mails."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
12. Republican asses are a fount,
a litteral cornucopia of ideas. (They just make this shit up.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
14. BULLSHIT! They were doing it BEFORE 9/11.
x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
15. But we wouldn't want to interfere with month long vacation
now would we. Vacation is far more important than protecting America...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
16. Sad n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
17. Did Lee Atwater or Ed Rollins or other political "strategy" hacks EVER
get out on the stump and make stupidass speeches like this? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
19. If a blatant warning, a PDB and an entire intelligence community
couldn't convince this administration that they needed to be aware of this possibility, not to mention several FBI agents now up on "whistleblowing" charges for being ignored when trying to warn the government, call me a cynic -- this is total campaign BS. This needs to be debunked loudly at any given opportunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
20. Hind sight, a Terra Photo Op, and some Election Year politics are 20/20
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samsingh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
21. Gore as President would more certainly have avoided 911
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxrandb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
22. and Someone needs to forcefully say
"Karl, if you would have allowed the Florida recount to finish, that would have prevented 9/11 too."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC