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.
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.”
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.”
Filed Under: civil liberties, george w. bush, nsa surveillance
Comments on “George W. Bush: NSA Surveillance Is No Problem Because Civil Liberties Are Guaranteed”
Speaking of plain language being reinterpreted
What about the plain language of the 4th amendment or, for that matter, all of the Bill of Rights? What about that? Please explain how these reinterpretations (secret or not) are “guaranteeing” our civil liberties are being protected. I think he may have been listening to Microsoft executives speak a little too long. These “guarantees” of civil liberties are starting to look like the Microsoft definition of “features”.
Re: Speaking of plain language being reinterpreted
Oh but the 4th amendment is only for citizens and we’re leaving the natives well alone in their disconnected reservations. So all’s fine there, please go back to sleep. We’ll wake you when there is a problem.
Re: Speaking of plain language being reinterpreted
If they’re guaranteed, I’d like my civil liberties back please.
You sure Bush didn’t just stumple over the woard ‘guaranteed’ and actually say sompin like civil liberties were a ‘faurmer need’?
You would think he would have learned to not speak in public.
Nigel
Re: Re:
“You would think he would have learned to not speak in public.”
Or anywhere else where there might be witnesses.
Re: Re:
You would think no reporter would let him speak unless he’d shown the WMDs.
Imagine that. The President who was slapped down by the Supreme Court for the biggest illegal wiretapping operation in history says mass surveillance is good. In other news Ronald MacDonald recommends you eat a Big Mac and a handful of french fries at least 3 times a day.
Re: Re:
Don’t think it’s really accurate to say it was the biggest illegal wiretapping operation in history anymore. Not unless you want to get really really pedantic about the definition of wiretapping anyway.
Oh. Well, in that case, carry on!
Yet another Bushism to add to the list.
G.W.G.
Georgie Jr continues to show that his grandfather was Forrest Gump.
Or maybe Bonzo. Bedtime, Bonzo!
Guaranteed, using the official NSA meaning perhaps
This from the guy who had a lawyer redefine words to make waterboarding no longer qualify as torture.
He and his buddies seem to have no problem changing the interpretation to obtain the effect they desire without changing the written words.
get real! he was a liar when in office and is no different now! although he wasn’t the instigator of the USA citizen surveillance, he certainly carried it on and made no attempt to stop it! what is really needed is to find who was the instigator, get those who were/are behind it, get it stopped and hold those accountable! it was/is bad enough spying on your own people, but to be doing it to your allies and their people is disgraceful, is underhand and uncalled for. and to have the audacity to blame China for using spy tech in things like routers? if things were reversed, the USA would have gone fucking nuts! now to keep blaming Snowden for blowing the whistle is typical! the US government is at fault here, ably abetted by the UK! you are the ones at fault not a person for making the world aware of how you have been taking the piss!
I guess it all depends on how the actual words, like “guaranteed”, “civil liberties” or “protecting the country” are defined. There might very well be a alternate definition of these words and phrases as used by the US government. This alternate thesaurus would of course be secret. For national security reasons you know.
Re: Re:
It’s almost like they’re parsed by lawyers or something.
Re: Re: Re:
Yea, it’s called Black’s Law Dictionary.
It LOOKS like english, SOUNDS like english, but it’s meaning is NOT English.
Guaranteed indeed
I totally trust him!
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.
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.
Re: Re:
………….
that is all,
Nigel
Re: Re:
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.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130628/01171923655/why-nsas-surveillance-program-is-unconstitutional.shtml
Re: Re:
Suspicionless searches are an a priori violation of the 4th. We have evidence that searches are being conducted routinely on communications of US citizens and no evidence that they were of the narrow, specific type allowable under the 4th ergo there is no evidence the 4th is being upheld.
QED.
Re: Re: Re:
Why am I getting a green line on the side of this as if I would have posted this?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The green lines indicate comments added since the last time you looked at the page, regardless of who made them.
Does Bush know what a computer is? To me the “right balance” argument looks like naivity and a complete lack of “points of reference”.
Re: Re:
Does Bush know his arse hole from his ear hole?
Re: Re: Re:
He thinks he may have found it once, but misunderestimated where it was.
Re: Re: Re:
Looking at Doublebushs face I cant tell the difference
Have another vote for the report, AC #13. You’re no more hidden this way than with your net nick.
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.
The only guarantee you can now count on is that you live in a police state.
When George W. Bush approves of your policies, that means you are doing something VERY wrong.
the proper balance
I too think there should be a proper balance. And that balance is *no* searches of a person’s phone calls or email or internet activity without a court approved search warrant.
Re: the proper balance
A real court you mean.
Clean the slate
I would rather have a straight up fight with a known enemy instead of treating everyone as the enemy.
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…
Wow no one cared very much about what passed for thought with that little puppet when he was supposed to be President, why would anyone care about whatever he dribbles now.
Deliverance of Bush
GW: “Just take off them pants and bend over. It’s ok, your civil liberties are guaranteed.”
Bush Bashers will continue their hate and vitriol, but those who truly want to protect Americans from Islamic inspired aggression while at the same time protecting American civil rights, will find Mr. Bush’s words wanting for further explanation, just as we’ve waited for the same from Mr. Obama.
Re: Re:
The same Mr Bush who ‘protected’ the West from terrorism by invading two countries at the same time, one of them completely unconnected with 9/11 and no real threat to anyone, and turned them into a mess of terrorism and terrorism recruitment, causing the death of untold numbers of innocents?
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.)
Re: Re: Re:
You’re a bit disconnected from reality, which is par for the course for a person with Bush Derangement Syndrome, but I learned a decade ago that people of your mental capabilities are “one trick ponies” and there’s simply no need to point out that “War on Terror” wasn’t aimed at al Qaeda exclusively, so whether the terrorist groups or nations supporting those groups had a direct hand in the 9-11 attacks was never germane. You can disagree with the policy all you wish, that is your right, but you’re not allowed your own set of “facts”. There’s only one truth, and that is the Bush Administration framed the “War on Terror” as a war against more than al Qaeda, thus the inclusion of Iraq in this war isn’t nearly as illogical as those with Bush Derangement Syndrome would have you believe.
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.
Re: 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.
Re: Re: Re:2 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.”
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.
Re: Re: Re:3 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?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I hate feeling like I have to step you through a debate like you’re a 5 year old, with a bunch of “you saids” and “I saids”, but with that said, in response to this comment of mine; “whether the terrorist groups or nations supporting those groups had a direct hand in the 9-11 attacks was never germane.”
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
1998: 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.
Re: Re: Re: Bush Derangement Syndrome
You very much remind me of Bush’s policy of looking at the letter of law and practice, and not the spirit. Over 75% of US troops in Iraq thought we were there to get revenge for 9/11.
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.
Re: Re: Re:2 Bush Derangement Syndrome
“Over 75% of US troops in Iraq thought we were there to get revenge for 9/11.”
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.
Re: Re:
And by the way, if I bash Bush, it is through his own actions. Nixon and Reagan weren’t wonderful, but they had their moments of humanity, even if they did some dumb/bad stuff as well. Bush managed to mix willful stupidity with the sheer malice against humankind that brought Cheney and Rumsfeld to positions of power.
Even Clinton had his dumb moments, such as DOMA. But that was probably a total lack of choice, I suspect.
This again?
Oh, lord, to be rid of the village idiot from Texas once and for all, would be heaven!
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
Isn’t civil liberties those evil little bugs that crawl up and bite the inside of your asshole?
Re: Re:
Quite big bugs when it comes to the size of Bush and Co’s arseholes…
Perhaps President Bush should elaborate.
Normally a guarantee comes in the form of a promised state of affairs (e.g. “You will think ours is the best ice cream you’ve ever tasted”) and a remuneration should that promise fail to be met (“or we’ll give you a full refund.”)
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?
If I am not allowed to know of the existence of the program, and if I am not allowed to know that the government has its own secret interpretation of the laws, then how have my civil liberties been guaranteed?
The truth is, they have not. In fact, my civil liberties have been run over by a huge bulldozer known as the NSA.
My refridgerator was guaranteed
until it broke. Then lots of wriggle room was found in the wording.
Re: My refridgerator was guaranteed
Exactly!
A guarantee is only as good as the word of the person giving it.
Y’all know what the “W” in “George W. Bush” stands for?
Wuh…wuh..wuh….courage, yeah!
Keep calm and carry on
Well, this is some kind of war, isn’t it? Beats me how that country bumpkin ever became president.
"George W. Bush: NSA Surveillance Is No Problem.."
I’m sure his stupid library would look better on some street corner in Cuba, or back-alley in North Korea. But then, were talking about someone with way too much cow manure between his ears. So his free speech muttering on the unconstitutional, communist NSA surveillance program on “real” American citizens matters for not. ;P