"Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration's demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet's leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools of the government.
Google competitor Yahoo Inc., which runs the Internet's second-most used search engine, confirmed Thursday that it had complied with a similar government subpoena."
Kudos to Google for fighting for what's right. Boo to you guys who still support the Bush regime.
2006-01-19
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Nadir: Six and I don't support every action of the Bushies, just as you don't support every action of the Clintons. I oppose most of these security measures. I think you know that I oppose the offensively and preposterously named Homeland Security and Patriot Acts.
Yet, Paul, you fail to recognize how dangerous this regime is to the US and to the rest of the world. These tactics cannot continue.
Someone give me a link that says Bush wants Googles records. This is getting out of hand. The authrized wiretaping is for communications orginating from overseas into the United States. It is not being used for communications between states or within a state. Bush is not tied to this Google story at all. It seems that this paranoid conspiracy mindset is getting out of hand.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_hi_te/google_records
I believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales works for George W. Bush.
No conspiracy here. The Bush Administration is spying on you. They admit it.
Why don't you believe them?
By the way, by continuing to support the Bush Administration and their tactics, you are granting you consent to the regime to spy on and torture YOU!
The Google story involves avporn investigation, not 911/terror.
Support for a president does not equate with support for the president's every action, Nadir. And since you believe that Bush and his cabinet members are all a bunch of liers, why would you quote Gonzales? You only believe the Bushies when they say something that you don't like.
I didn't quote Gonzales. I just pointed out that Gonzales works for Bush.
If they will spy based on porn, they will spy for other reasons.
Do you think Bush is lying when he says he is spying on people, but doesn't care what Americans think? I don't.
Do you think Bush is lying when he says he will continue to torture people? I don't.
Bush and crew "sexed up" the WMD intelligence, and later admitted that his intelligence was "wrong". I believe him.
==========
Do you think Bush is lying when he says he is spying on people, but doesn't care what Americans think? I don't.
==========
Yes, I believe this claim. I believe that Bush is looking for people conspiring to effect terrorist operations on the US, not to identify people who hold any other beliefs. Please explain to us what non-terror thoughts that you believe Bush wants to identify? And what you think he wants to do with the people identified as having these thoughts?
PS: In as much as I've examined this issue, I oppose these measures, but do not fear them.
======
Bush and crew "sexed up" the WMD intelligence, and later admitted that his intelligence was "wrong". I believe him.
======
I agree that Bush sexed up the WMD, in order to make the clearest case for what he and his crew actually believed to be true. I believe that they entered Iraq fully expecting to find weapons caches that would confirm their claims that Hussein had banned weapons. I certainly do not believe that Bush's gang knew that by the time they invaded Iraq that the country would contain no such weapons. If they knew that Iraq contained no such weapons, I am cerain that they would have stuck with the other elements of their case for reducing anti-US terror from the islamic world by installing a democracy in Iraq.
Dick Morris makes a pretty good case that Bush's warrentless wiretaps are legal:
http://www.vote.com/magazine/columns/dickmorris/column60375849.phtml
Nadir: Are the critics claiming that these wiretaps involve communication between American citizens on American soil? Or only between American citizens on American soil with people outside of the US? My first thought is that I don't oppose the US President at his own perogative wiretapping international phone calls during war time... provided that collective evidence can't be used in cases involving domestic crimes, such as drug trafficing.
Post a Comment