NYT: Secretly Taped Conversations with W

[Fleshdancer]

I hope this isn't a dupe....

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/20talk.html?ei=5065&en=3d3a7b4f99465096&ex=1109480400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&position=


WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 - As George W. Bush was first moving onto the national political stage, he often turned for advice to an old friend who secretly taped some of their private conversations, creating a rare record of the future president as a politician and a personality.

In the last several weeks, that friend, Doug Wead, an author and former aide to Mr. Bush's father, disclosed the tapes' existence to a reporter and played about a dozen of them.

Variously earnest, confident or prickly in those conversations, Mr. Bush weighs the political risks and benefits of his religious faith, discusses campaign strategy and comments on rivals. John McCain "will wear thin," he predicted. John Ashcroft, he confided, would be a "very good Supreme Court pick" or a "fabulous" vice president. And in exchanges about his handling of media questions about his past, Mr. Bush appears to have acknowledged trying marijuana.

Mr. Wead said he recorded the conversations because he viewed Mr. Bush as a historic figure, but he said he knew that the president might regard his actions as a betrayal. As the author of a new book about presidential childhoods, Mr. Wead could benefit from any publicity, but he said that was not a motive in disclosing the tapes.

[rzemanfl]

1. This reeks of a setup of some sort. In most, if not all states

recording a conversation without the consent of the person being recorded is a crime. This can't be what they say it is.

[sleepyhead]

3. I don't know about other states

But in NY it is OK for either side to tape a conversation without the other's knowledge. What you can't do is to tape 2 *other* people having a conversation without their knowledge - in other words, the person doing the taping has to be one of the participants in the dialog.

[rzemanfl]

6. I might be wrong. I was thinking about telephone

conversations rather than face to face.

[sleepyhead]

11. I think the law applies to both.

I know it applies to telephone conversations, because once someone taped me without my knowledge and doctored the tape to try to make trouble for me (long story) - but anyway, when I consulted a lawyer, he said that as long as the person doing the taping was a party in the conversation, surreptitious taping would have been legal (although doctoring the tape to change my words was not).

[rzemanfl]

14. That may be the law in New York. I don't think that's the case

everywhere, which is why we always hear "your call may be recorded for quality control purposes" and the like while we are put on hold.

Sorry you had to learn the law of your state the way you did.

[sleepyhead]

16. The reason you hear that message

is that in that case it *is* a third party recording the call. I read an article about in (I think) the NYT. Companies are outsourcing the recording of their calls (how unusual) to third parties either here or overseas.

An interesting sidelight to that is that when the calls are being monitored, the person doing the monitoring can hear everything you say, even when you are on hold. So when you make fun of the "on hold" music, or sing along, or belch into the phone, or yell at the dog/kids/spouse, they are still listening!

[rzemanfl]

18. I think I am showing my age on this. I am positive that in the past

there were laws that prohibited intercepting phone conversations without the consent of the person being recorded-in those days the technology for doing that was not as readily available as it is now so recording a conversation was a big deal. I seem to recall also a periodic beeping tone that was part of conversations that were being recorded.

This is all probably ancient history.

[sleepyhead]

20. I will show my age too - I remember all that.

But I think you are correct in that the technology has gone past that. Any private citizen now has the means to record conversations silently. I don't think we are actually disagreeing here. The laws that we have now (in my state, anyway) still prohibit interception of conversations *by a third party* without the consent of all concerned. But either of the two parties that are actually conversing has the right to record the conversation even without notification. In other words, if I call you on the phone, I can record anything you say without warning you (and vice versa). But I cannot record your calls to others, even your order at the local pizza place, without the notification you have discussed (and I think I would also be required to use the beeps to continually alert you to the fact that you were being recorded).

I can understand that there may sometimes be justification for recording one's conversations without the other party's knowledge - it's not inherently good or bad. But especially based on my personal experience, I do feel a bit queasy about giving wholesale permission for anyone in the world (or at least in the state of NY) to do this.

[rzemanfl]

22. Thanks for that. I recall in the early days of cassette recorders

having a round thing that slipped over the ear piece of the receiver and plugged into the recorder. Then I could dial (rotary) someone and record the conversation after carefully getting their permission and then record their permission again after I started the tape. It was useful for getting detail stuff like long lists of things accurately pre-fax and FedEx. This was back when the IBM Selectric was state-of-the-art and calculators were mechanical. I haven't heard those beeps in a long time, could be nobody thinks what I have to say is worth recording, could be the law changed. I think some of what we recall goes all the way back to the Communications Act of 1934, but I am too lazy to research it.

[burn the bush]

17. yep, as long as one party knows, it's ok in some states

[Cooley Hurd]

2. No way!

"And in exchanges about his handling of media questions about his past, Mr. Bush appears to have acknowledged trying marijuana."

That damn gateway drug!:smoke:

[Tsiyu]

5. According to the War On Certain Drugs Crowd

the mere fact that * was ever in possession of weed means he should have been locked away for a long time, all of his rights and effects should have been stripped away and, since smoking marijuana means you're a loser, he should never have been allowed to serve in any capacity as a politician.

Instead, a confessed marijuana smoker is Preznent? Kinda makes all of their anti-pot commercials LIES!!!!!!!!!

[Fleshdancer]

7. Yep, those damn commercials....so I guess W also supports terrorism?

Isn't that what the anti-drug commercials said?

[Tsiyu]

21. Yes Indeedy Do!

We now have the proof we need. * = terrorist

[merh]

4. Here's your answer as to why

"But Mr. Bush also repeatedly worried that prominent evangelical Christians would not like his refusal "to kick gays." At the same time, he was wary of unnerving secular voters by meeting publicly with evangelical leaders. When he thought his aides had agreed to such a meeting, Mr. Bush complained to Karl Rove, his political strategist, "What the hell is this about?""

(snip)

"The private Mr. Bush sounds remarkably similar in many ways to the public President Bush. Many of the taped comments foreshadow aspects of his presidency, including his opposition to both antigay language and recognizing same-sex marriage, his skepticism about the United Nations, his sense of moral purpose and his focus on cultivating conservative Christian voters."

Gannon's website has caused them concern and he is trying to show that he has always supported gays. (imho)

[Fleshdancer]

8. I was suspicious of that too

according to this article, it seems like the majority of conversations W and Wead have together mostly revolve around religion and homosexuality.

I wonder who else, other than the NYT, got to hear these tapes.

[merh]

9. and yet more:

(snip)

But Mr. Bush said he did not intend to change his position. He said he told Mr. Robison: "Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?"

Later, he read aloud an aide's report from a convention of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: "This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It's hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however."

"This is an issue I have been trying to downplay," Mr. Bush said. "I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays."

(snip)

As early as 1998, however, Mr. Bush had already identified one gay-rights issue where he found common ground with conservative Christians: same-sex marriage. "Gay marriage, I am against that. Special rights, I am against that," Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead, five years before a Massachusetts court brought the issue to national attention.

[Fleshdancer]

10. John Ashcroft, he confided, would be a "very good Supreme Court pick"

Damn. I know many here on DU suspected it, but DAMN.

[Last Lemming]

12. Dont take THAT seriously

. . .I think the "administration" thought Ashcroft was a joke. . .

[Placebo]

13. "Fabulous" is Bush's most favoritest word ever!

He uses it a lot. :dunce:

[Stop_the_War]

15. omg bush wants to appoint ashcroft into the surpreme court? n/t

[Disturbed]

19. Another example of So called Christian ethics.

Taping someone's private convos. Then releasing them without their permission.