Under Clinton, NY Times called surveillance "a necessity"

[Lawman]

[url="http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5150"]http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5150[/url]

The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush. They certainly didn’t show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990’s. At that time, the Times called the surveillance “a necessity.”

The current controversy follows a Times report that, since 9/11, U.S. intelligence agencies are eavesdropping at any time on up to 500 people in the U.S. suspected of conducting international communications with terrorists. Under Echelon, the Clinton administration was spying on just about everyone

Even as the Times defended Echelon as “a necessity” in 1999, evidence already existed that electronic surveillance had previously been misused by the Clinton Administration for political purposes. Intelligence officials told Insight Magazine in 1997 that a 1993 conference of Asian and Pacific world leaders hosted by Clinton in Seattle had been spied on by U.S. intelligence agencies. Further, the magazine reported that information obtained by the spying had been passed on to big Democrat corporate donors to use against their competitors. The Insight story added that the mis-use of the surveillance for political reasons caused the intelligence sources to reveal the operation.

So, during the Clinton Administration, evidence existed (all of the information used in this article was available at the time) that:

-an invasive, extensive domestic eavesdropping program was aimed at every U.S. citizen;

-intelligence agencies were using allies to circumvent constitutional restrictions;

-and the administration was selling at least some secret intelligence for political donations.

[Guest steggyD]

It's wrong to spy on your own citizens, no matter which party is in power.

[Ben]

I love the "b..buub..buut clinton..." argument.

I cant wait until bush is out of office and we a 2fer..bbb.bb..bbut clinton and b..bbb.bbbuut bush!

[Guest steggyD]

If only there were more Libertarians in this nation...

[Lawman]

[quote name='Ben' post='203708' date='Jan 14 2006, 03:34 PM']I love the "b..buub..buut clinton..." argument.

I cant wait until bush is out of office and we a 2fer..bbb.bb..bbut clinton and b..bbb.bbbuut bush![/quote]


Ben,

The article was attacking the New York Times not Clinton.

The information provided in the article illustrated the hypocrisy of the New York Times.

We probably didn't hear anything from them due to the aspirations of the First Lady at the time one Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York Senator. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/39.gif[/img]