Jeb Bush: NSA Needs Broader Powers To Combat 'Evildoers'
Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS
BY BILL BARROW
ASSOCIATED PRESS
ATLANTA (AP) -- Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said Tuesday that the government should have broad surveillance powers of Americans and private technology firms should cooperate better with intelligence agencies to help combat "evildoers."
At a national security forum in the early voting state of South Carolina, Bush put himself at odds with Republican congressional leaders who earlier this year voted to end the National Security Agency's bulk collection of phone records.
The former Florida governor said Congress should revisit its changes to the Patriot Act, and he dismissed concerns from civil libertarians who say the program violated citizens' constitutionally protected privacy rights.
"There's a place to find common ground between personal civil liberties and NSA doing its job," Bush said. "I think the balance has actually gone the wrong way."
Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_BUSH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-18-18-13-25
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)to trace every bank account over 1 million dollars, anywhere in the world, Switzerland, Cayman Islands, wherever, and share that info with the IRS, for instance. Because some of them might be 'terrist' accounts, and others will probably be laundering or hiding money they owe taxes on, after all.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)just plain old neighbors ratting on neighbors that makes you wet at night, you creep?
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)Why doesn't he just go on stage and play clips of his brother's speeches?
Clearly he is trying to be hawkish to appeal to the war-hungry Republicans, but even THEY blanched at the Iraq war disaster. Why would they want a repeat? And how does he think Bush 3 is going to play in a general election?
potone
(1,701 posts)It sounds like it came out of Lord of the Rings; but then again, that simple good/evil mindset does seem to be the way Republican politicians think. No one else who is over the age of 17 does.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)It has religious connotations, in my mind, as though the 'evildoers' are buddies with the devil.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.bush.terrorism/
"Tomorrow, when you get back to work, work hard like you always have. But we've been warned. We've been warned there are evil people in this world. We've been warned so vividly," Bush said. "And we'll be alert. Your government is alert. The governors and mayors are alert that evil folks still lurk out there. As I said yesterday, people have declared war on America and they have made a terrible mistake."
"My administration has a job to do and we're going to do it. We will rid the world of the evil-doers," he said.
~snip~
Bush made the same point during his remarks at the White House. "This crusade, this war on terrorism is gonna take awhile. And the American people must be patient. I'm gonna be patient," Bush said.
~snip~
"We haven't seen this kind of barbarism in a long period of time," Bush said. "This is a new kind of evil."
Following the terrorist attacks of September 2001, Bush Administration officials incorporated moralistic terms when referring to Saddam Hussein. On the February 3, 2002 “Fox News Sunday” show, Madeline Albright’s comment about the “Axis of Evil” reference was discussed. Albright had objected to the reference, but Secretary Rice “disagreed, calling the move an excellent way for the U.S. to rally the world.” (90)
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-08-15-rice-saddam_x.htm
"This is an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbors and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, all of us. (It) is a very powerful moral case for regime change," she told BBC radio. "We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing."
~snip~
Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Liberal Democrat Party, said Rice's arguments for removal of Saddam did not stand up under international law.
"In international affairs it is not enough to claim a moral authority in cases where the United Nations has been involved," he said.
"There will be no world order if the most powerful states are entitled to remove other governments at will. There is no doctrine of international law which justifies regime change."
excerpted from the book Indispensible Enemies The Politics of Misrule in America by Walter Karp
Franklin Square Press, 1993, paper
{originally published - 1973}
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Walter_Karp/State_Of_War_IE.html
p266
In prosecuting an aggressive foreign policy, the party oligarchs have been driven by no cause or interest external to themselves: by no fundamental economic interest, by no genuine threat to the security of the Republic, by no irresistible popular demand. Except in the post-World War I period, when the American people, out of universal disgust with Wilson's war, were determined to renew the republican policy of no entangling alliances and the world at large gave the party oligarchs no opportunity to overcome that determination,* American foreign policy has been gratuitously aggressive since 1898, a policy carried out for no compelling reason except the oligarchs' wish to prosecute an aggressive foreign policy. Their reason for wanting such a policy, however, is scarcely mysterious and certainly not irrational. An aggressive foreign policy safeguards the power of the power wielders and strengthens their control over those whom they rule. This is a political commonplace applied by historic rulers a thousand different times, and Americans understood it clearly enough when they opposed entangling alliances.
The political advantages of an aggressive foreign policy are both obvious and manifold. It distracts the citizenry from domestic interests and concerns. It makes national strength, national unity, national security and national resolve the paramount standards by which all else is judged. Under an aggressive foreign policy the common good ceases to be the good of the individual citizens and becomes instead the good of the nation. Under an aggressive foreign policy a republic of self-governing citizens becomes a corporate entity, a mere nation-state, one whose highest purpose is preserving the status quo. An aggressive foreign policy enables the oligarchs to stifle reform on the grounds that reform would be divisive, or would cost the confidence of business," or would be a "luxury" in a time of peril and sacrifice. It enables the party oligarchs to silence independent voices and crush political insurgents on the grounds that they weaken national unity and give comfort to the nation's enemies. In the crises and alarms of an aggressive foreign policy, collusion between the two parties scarcely requires a mask; it can parade itself as virtuous bipartisanship in the service of national survival. Under cover of an aggressive foreign policy the party oligarchs can serve their interests with an ease impossible in a peaceful republic. In the name of national defense they can dispense grotesque windfall privileges such as the oil import quotas and the "national defense" highway fund. In the name of national security they can shroud government in the mantle of secrecy and infringe on the liberty of the citizens. Under an aggressive foreign policy the republican standard itself is gradually inverted. The government, to borrow Madison's phrase, becomes the Censor of the people rather than the people being the Censor of their government. It is the citizenry who must now prove their "loyalty," while the government taps their telephones, monitors their private mail and organizes "patriots" to root out neighborhood traitors. Submission replaces independence; fear replaces hope; the citizenry acquires the habit of obedience and loses the habit of self-rule; the turbulent sea of liberty becomes frozen in the false peace of national unity. If there are risks inherent in an aggressive foreign policy-and there are-they are greatly outweighed by the political advantages it brings to those who wield usurped power.
There is nothing puzzling, therefore, about America's gratuitously aggressive foreign policy or about the oligarchs' successful efforts to drag the Republic into five wars. What an aggressive foreign policy accomplishes by slow degrees, a state of war accomplishes in a trice. Overnight {war} kills reform, overnight it transforms insurgents into traitors and the Republic into an imperiled realm. Overnight it strangles free politics, distracts and overawes the citizenry. Overnight it blasts public hope. The risks of war are very great-as Johnson learned to his sorrow-and the party oligarchs have not launched wars for lighthearted reasons. They have done so because war seemed to them the only way to protect their power in a moment of particular peril. The proof of this is obvious on inspection, for the immediate domestic background to every modern American war-the Korean War partly excepted-was a clear and present danger to party control of politics. Johnson's war was not unique.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030700739.html
To prevail in this fight, we must understand the nature of the enemy. As Israelis have seen so many times, and as America experienced on September 11th, 2001, the terrorist enemy is brutal and heartless. This enemy wears no uniform, has no regard for the rules of warfare, and is unconstrained by any standard of decency or morality. We are dealing with enemies who plot and plan in secret, then attempt to slip into a country, blend in among the innocent, and kill without mercy.
This enemy has a set of beliefs --- and we saw the expression of those beliefs in the rule of the Taliban. They seek to impose a dictatorship of fear, under which every man, woman, and child lives in total obedience to a narrow, hateful ideology. This ideology rejects tolerance, denies freedom of conscience, and demands that women be pushed to the margins of society. Such beliefs can be imposed only through force and intimidation, so those who refuse to bow to the tyrants will be brutalized or killed --- and no person or group is exempt.
The terrorists have targeted people of every nationality and every religious faith, including Muslims who disagree with them. The war on terror is a fight against evil; victory in this war will be a victory for peaceful men and women of every religious faith. (Applause.)
Terrorism plays well with audiences accustomed to the discourse of fear as well as political leadership oriented to social policy geared to protecting those audiences from crime. I am proposing, then, that the discourse of fear is a key element of social fears involving crime and other dreaded outcomes in the postmodern world. As rhetoricians have noted, terrorism is easily included within this perspective:
Terrorism, then, is first and foremost discourse. There is a sense in which the terrorist event must be reported by the media in order for it to have transpired at all. (Zulaika & Douglass, 1996, p. 14)
Terrorism is more than a narrative, but its essence is the definition of the situation, one that extends beyond the present into a distal future, gray but known. The forebodingness of events (e.g., 9/11 attacks) is cast as a terrible trend, inevitability, but the power comes from the uncertainty of “when” and “where.” Like the prospective victims of crime in the future, citizens will be made terrorist victims in the future.
Terrorism—and especially the attacks of 9/ll—enabled political actors to expand the definition of the situation to all Americans as victims. Moreover, all those fighting to protect actual and potential victims should be permitted to do their work, unimpeded by any concerns about civil liberties or adding context and complexity to the simple analysis that was offered: Evil people were attacking good people, and evil had to be destroyed.
Morgenthau, for example, thought of the "rational" statesman as ever striving to accumulate more and more power. He viewed power as an end in itself. Although he acknowledged that nations at times act out of considerations other than power, Morgenthau insisted that, when they do so, their actions are not "of a political nature."3 In contrast, neorealism sees power as a possibly useful means, with states running risks if they have either too little or too much of it. Excessive weakness may invite an attack that greater strength would have dissuaded an adversary from launching. Excessive strength may prompt other states to increase their arms and pool their efforts against the dominant state.
In crucial situations, however, the ultimate concern of states is not for power but for security.
Realism thinks of causes as moving in only one direction, from the interactions of individuals and states to the outcomes that their acts and interactions produce. Morgenthau recognized that, when there is competition for scarce goods and no one to serve as arbiter, a struggle for power will ensue among the competitors and that consequently the struggle for power can be explained without reference to the evil born in men. The struggle for power arises simply because men want things, not because of the evil in their desires.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)It was obvious - and enraging - at the time.
In retrospect it looks even worse. Those were dark days indeed.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)Oh no he didn't!
But then this is another Bush idiot.
Evildoers? Go fuck yourself!
We should have said that the first time we heard the word.
PSPS
(13,600 posts)How does helping the 'evildoers' combat them?
newfie11
(8,159 posts)
liberal N proud
(60,335 posts)Everything except the corporations and military/police.
SamKnause
(13,107 posts)The Republican Party are the evildoers.
Politicians that pretend to be Democratic are the evildoers.
Wall Street are the evildoers.
The Military Industrial Complex are the evildoers.
The majority of corporations are the evildoers.
The majority of CEO's are the evildoers.
Many of the countries that the U.S. sells weapons to are the evildoers.
War profiteers are the evildoers.
Religious fanatics are the evildoers.
Hate groups are the evildoers.
We KNOW WHO the evildoers are.
We have known for quite some time.
Now that we know, what is being done ???
Nothing, squat, zero, nada, zilch, 0.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
forest444
(5,902 posts)I mean, if they really loved their country.
EEO
(1,620 posts)NO.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)Frankly, I think he would.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)Why now all of a sudden?
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)It runs in the family.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)i would vote for more nsa if they would really go after the evil doers here at home
ericson00
(2,707 posts)I've always suspected he decided to run simply to quell the voices shouting at him to do so.
NCjack
(10,279 posts)
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]He's been taking advice from his shithead brother. Dumbass.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Like a Family of Evildoers?
Carlyle Group owns a big chunk of Booz Allen Hamilton, go-to guys of the NSA!
Such a coincidence and profitable, too! What a small world is that.
Duval
(4,280 posts)eom
seafan
(9,387 posts)I swear, you just cannot make this stuff up.
Today in South Carolina, Jeb Bush bombs at national security.
He wants to resume broad surveillance powers over Americans by the government; he wants tech firms to partner with intelligence agencies to combat encryption of people's private communications; he wants to 'revisit' the power of the Patriot Act.
Jeb Bush: NSA needs broader powers to combat 'evildoers'
Bush doubled-down Tuesday on his assertions that there is "no evidence" the data collection violated civil liberties. "I've found not one" case, he said.
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an independent bipartisan agency, declared NSA's phone records collections program illegal in 2014, and a federal court of appeals reached the same conclusion earlier this year.
A May analysis from the Justice Department found that FBI agents interviewed by the inspector general's office "did not identify any major case developments" that came from using Section 215 that allowed the bulk records collection.
Bush also criticized private technology firms for using encryption to make it harder for their customers to be surveilled. "It makes it harder for the American government to do its job while protecting civil liberties to make sure evildoers aren't in our midst," he said.
Noting that companies like Google are getting pressure from customers, Bush said "market share ... should not be the be-all-end-all," and he called for "a new arrangement with Silicon Valley in this regard."
Jeb Bush and the Evildoers. Where is that Gong Show hook?
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Once again, we'll call you, please don't call us.
While you're waiting, we suggest you and that idiot big brother of yours play tag together on a busy freeway.
Duval
(4,280 posts)especially when I saw "Evildoers". Now, where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah, the former President and son of a President. Lord have mercy upon us all.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)could they have any broader powers that they already have. I see a little of brother George in this one.
Maybe we will have another rigged election.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)That word has all the punch of a third grade insult...evildoers. How fucking immature.
montana_hazeleyes
(3,424 posts)all over again.
irisblue
(32,980 posts)hell with that noise.....Jeb! you are sooo wrong.
wiggs
(7,814 posts)this mentioned every single day he opens his mouth?
He signed along with other notorious PNACrs such as Gary Bauer, Bill Bennett, Dick Cheney, Steve Forbes, Donald Kagan, Scooter Libby, Dan Quayle, Don Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz....many of whom went on to suggest a 'new pearl harbor' to justify middle east actions....and many of whom went on to star in one of the darkest episodes of american foreign policy in the Bush administration.
For seven years they have pilloried Obama because one of his neighbors and acquaintances is an original Weatherman from 40 years ago....Ayers....and here not only does Jeb's have a past affiliation with international criminals, with our worst foreign policy blunder in history, with a statement calling for middle east domination through war...not only that, but he's also hiring some of them NOW as his foreign policy team!!
The only thing more amazing than that is how the media is completely ignoring it.
lastlib
(23,242 posts)...along with the fact that Tom Ridge just looked like a commissar (sans the battle ribbons)......
FUCK PNACers! All of 'em!
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)FEMA concentration camps await dissenters.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)worst nightmare!
Gumboot
(531 posts)Maybe the NSA could tell us about about Jeb's declaration of martial law in Florida, on 9/9/2001. That would make for some very interesting reading.
Now I'm wondering if Jeb's role in this whole election charade is to make Donald Trump look credible... 
hughee99
(16,113 posts)
burrowowl
(17,641 posts)the Bush Family EVILDOERS!
Psephos
(8,032 posts)Andrej28
(65 posts)There were rumors he was going to try to distance himself from Dubya, but he can't do this because he really does agree with Dubya on all the issues. He even wants to start another Iraq War.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)What a chump.
Frank Cannon
(7,570 posts)Do we really have to go through this shit again? Is there some sort of viral amnesia/dementia in this country to which I'm somehow immune? I thought they took lead out of gasoline way back in the 1970s.
Deadbeat Republicans
(111 posts)
Vinca
(50,276 posts)Trump's looking better and better on the GOP side.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)He's so gross.
That said, I expect the control freaks in the Repug party to like the NSA.
I am more than disappointed when Democratic officials support this kind of government spying.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Just how stupid are the American people????
randome
(34,845 posts)For Bush to not recognize that is...bizarre. Was he mumbling in his sleep, maybe?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben franklin
Mike Nelson
(9,958 posts)...the old blockhead.