Questioning the intentions of the counterterrorism policies

[noise]

Much of the debate about the torture and spying program seems to be centered on the illegal nature of the policies. Why should we assume the Bush administration has acted in good faith at any step of the way? By this I mean the counterterrorism policies may have been a front for implementing a fascist agenda.

Did the lack of police state tactics explain 9/11? No. We had a President (and NSA Rice) do nothing despite urgent warnings from other states and the CIA. We had obstructed FBI investigations (Moussaoui, Cole bombing, search for al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar). We had CIA giving the President warnings yet failing to share actionable intel with FBI (the agency that had the responsibility to thwart terrorist attacks in the US).

Two points that back my suspicions:

1. Torture isn't a reliable method for attaining intel.

2. Some sort of domestic spying program was started in early 2001.

[Greyhound]

1. "may have been a front for implementing a fascist agenda"?

:rofl:

[noise]

2. I've followed the mainstream media coverage

It has been authoritarian. They might question the legality of the tactics but refuse to question whether Bush acted in good faith in the first place. For example, we are being told that the telecom companies deserve immunity based on the single notion that Bush instructed them to break the law for the purpose of preventing terrorist attacks. IMO, a rather important question to ask is whether Bush is telling the truth. What is his word worth? Is it worth trashing the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions?

[Greyhound]

3. There's no 'may' about it. We have undergone a coup and a blatant

deconstruction of our nation, and the sheeple just lay around chewing their cuds. In the last ~century we have gone from one of the freest nations on Earth to a police State.

It's really sad.:cry: