64% of Americans Support NSA Intercepts


PDA






roo_ster
December 30, 2005, 09:20 AM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

I predicted that none of the major media outlets would comission a poll on this subject, but did not think about a pollster taking up the subject on thier own. I expected the American people to firmly support GWB & the NSA, but what really surprised me was that a majority of Democrats also supported the actions.

I guess this is one reason that GWB's poll numbers are rising while hte Democrat's numbers are falling in tha last couple months.

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

If you enjoyed reading about "64% of Americans Support NSA Intercepts" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sistema1927
December 30, 2005, 09:24 AM
What is really amazing is that 51% of Democrats are supportive.

This story was just on "Fox & Friends".

Them Bones
December 30, 2005, 09:28 AM
Newsflash........ 64% of Americans are stupid.

Ermac
December 30, 2005, 09:46 AM
Newsflash........ 64% of Americans are stupid.

Another Newsflash....you are Stupid! Awesome post! Good way to contribute.


In relation to the thread, I think 64% of Americans are smart. Gee, only W is trying to PREVENT terrorism in the US. Gee, I wonder why the other 36% is against it? Maybe they ought to read into the NSA wiretaps and see what it is about before going "OMG, my rights, my rights, my civil liberties." :banghead:

Wllm. Legrand
December 30, 2005, 09:51 AM
Another Newsflash....you are Stupid! Awesome post! Good way to contribute.


In relation to the thread, I think 64% of Americans are smart. Gee, only W is trying to PREVENT terrorism in the US. Gee, I wonder why the other 36% is against it? Maybe they ought to read into the NSA wiretaps and see what it is about before going "OMG, my rights, my rights, my civil liberties." :banghead:

:rolleyes: It just demonstrates the fallacy that wisdom is additive.

GoRon
December 30, 2005, 10:03 AM
Lets stay on topic and cut out the name calling.

It doesn't seem to me that all the information is out about who and what the NSA is spying on.

The Bush haters have the President convicted and impeached already.

It is a healthy debate and if this and other administrations have crossed the line then the debate will drag them back hopefully.

Tory
December 30, 2005, 10:28 AM
"Gee, only W is trying to PREVENT terrorism in the US."

Gee, W thinks that is accomplished by violating the Constitutional rights of American citizens while leaving the borders wide open.

Yes, that's a blindingly intelligent strategic assessment....... :barf:

The Drew
December 30, 2005, 10:39 AM
Another Newsflash....you are Stupid! Awesome post! Good way to contribute.


In relation to the thread, I think 64% of Americans are smart. Gee, only W is trying to PREVENT terrorism in the US. Gee, I wonder why the other 36% is against it? Maybe they ought to read into the NSA wiretaps and see what it is about before going "OMG, my rights, my rights, my civil liberties." :banghead:

Great way to contribute right back...

how about this... At least 64% of the people are sheeple, and will give up any civil liberties they have for the illusion of security.

Maybe the NSA and the president ought to respect THE LAW, and THE CONSTITUTION, and NOBODY would have a problem with these wiretaps.

yucaipa
December 30, 2005, 10:41 AM
Newsflash........ 64% of Americans are stupid.


I'm a proud card carrying member of the "stuipd 64%" :D

Don't Tread On Me
December 30, 2005, 10:44 AM
Would those 64% still support the NSA domestic spying if they knew how these powers were abused? Like the NSA spying on Quakers. Or the NSA spying on churches, then the feds threatening to revoke their non-profit status because a priest or pastor gave what they interpreted to be an anti-Iraq war sermon?



FACT: Like tasers are being abused by police, spy powers get abused by the feds. You give these guys an inch, they take a foot. This is the nature of government and police.



Let's be real Americans and stop talking about what powers to give the government, but rather we should be talking about what we should be stripping them of.


That's not going to happen though, since most Americans approve of and demand the nanny-state.

Hawkmoon
December 30, 2005, 10:45 AM
Newsflash........ 64% of Americans are stupid.
That, and the spin doctors are successfully spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). Never overlook the FUD factor.

Derby FALs
December 30, 2005, 10:45 AM
I'm a proud card carrying member of the "stuipd 64%" :D

Some of us already knew that. :p

Ermac
December 30, 2005, 11:08 AM
Great way to contribute right back...

how about this... At least 64% of the people are sheeple, and will give up any civil liberties they have for the illusion of security.

Maybe the NSA and the president ought to respect THE LAW, and THE CONSTITUTION, and NOBODY would have a problem with these wiretaps.

Then how comes nobody realizes that CARTER, REAGAN, BUSH SR., and KLINTON did the same? It seems everyone likes to point the finger at Bush. So your saying that wiretaps FOR SUSPECTED TERRORIST ACTIVITIES are not justified? It seems like the media has got to most people. And let me ask you this, have we had ANY terrorist activities since 9/11? Oh gee, maybe we are doing something right in prevention. Besides, if your not a terrorist, you won't be wire tapped and have nothing to worry about...right?

The Drew
December 30, 2005, 11:13 AM
Then how comes nobody realizes that CARTER, REAGAN, BUSH SR., and KLINTON did the same? It seems everyone likes to point the finger at Bush. So your saying that wiretaps FOR SUSPECTED TERRORIST ACTIVITIES are not justified? It seems like the media has got to most people. And let me ask you this, have we had ANY terrorist activities since 9/11? Oh gee, maybe we are doing something right in prevention. Besides, if your not a terrorist, you won't be wire tapped and have nothing to worry about...right?


It doesn't matter, how very 3rd grade of you to say... "he did it first" so I guess that makes it OK.

You're argument that "if you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about" is weak. How long before gun rights activists become labeled as "terrorists".

As far as justification goes, they may be justified, however if they involve american citizens on american soil, then without a warrant (before or after the fact) they are Illegal. How can you expect the people to obey the law when the government so readily throws it aside?

Derby FALs
December 30, 2005, 11:15 AM
So your saying that wiretaps FOR SUSPECTED TERRORIST ACTIVITIES are not justified?

Illegal wiretaps are never justified, no matter which president authorizes said wiretap.

Lobotomy Boy
December 30, 2005, 11:15 AM
Then how comes nobody realizes the CARTER, REAGAN, BUSH SR., and KLINTON did the same?

That's not exactly true--those other presidents may well have engaged in illegal wiretaps, but none of them ever claimed to be above the law. The real difference here is that Bush has stated that he is not bound by the constraints of the Constitution, which effectively amounts to the assumption of dictatorial powers.

Even if that is not the case, we're in deep, deep trouble when the best defense for our current president is that he's no worse than Clinton.

Flyboy
December 30, 2005, 11:16 AM
Just remember what percentage support re-authorizing the "assault weapons" ban.

Heck, think about what percentage think the AWB has something to do with machineguns.

Even if the poll were statistically valid--a point I don't concede until I've seen, among other things, the phrasing of the questions--just because the people like it doesn't make it right. To borrow a line, "[p]eople are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.”

Ermac
December 30, 2005, 11:27 AM
It doesn't matter, how very 3rd grade of you to say... "he did it first" so I guess that makes it OK.

You're argument that "if you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about" is weak. How long before gun rights activists become labeled as "terrorists".

As far as justification goes, they may be justified, however if they involve american citizens on american soil, then without a warrant (before or after the fact) they are Illegal. How can you expect the people to obey the law when the government so readily throws it aside?

I'm not saying that I totally disagree with you (on par with us gun activists being called terrorists eventually)...but I do think W is doing the right thing with the wiretaps (again, My opinion). If American citizens are having conversations with suspected al queda groups in Iraq, Afganistan...then by all means should they be monitored.

The Drew
December 30, 2005, 11:33 AM
Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?

This is the poll question. It FAILS to address the warrant issue, which is the entire point of this debate. Whether or not the president and the NSA need to have warrants for these wiretaps. Not whether or not they can intercept phone conversations at all...

yonderway
December 30, 2005, 11:34 AM
Good thing we don't live in a democracy. See, under a republic, mob rule by the idiotic 64% wouldn't happen.

Oh, wait, these days we do live in a democracy where the constitution is a "living document". :barf:

yucaipa
December 30, 2005, 11:36 AM
Illegal wiretaps



The Democrat leadership (and the ACLU) keep using that term,the problem is the facts and the case law doesn't back them up.

It's one thing to say :the president "should not" have the authority,under existing law.

Its dishonest to say : the president "does not" have the authority under existing law.

Lobotomy Boy
December 30, 2005, 11:38 AM
If American citizens are having conversations with suspected al queda groups in Iraq, Afganistan...then by all means should they be monitored.

The problem with bending Constitutional rules for one group is that you then have carte blanche to bend them for other groups. The slippery-slope theory is more than just a theory--like evolution, they've found the bones.

Ermac
December 30, 2005, 11:38 AM
Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?

This is the poll question. It FAILS to address the warrant issue, which is the entire point of this debate. Whether or not the president and the NSA need to have warrants for these wiretaps. Not whether or not they can intercept phone conversations at all...

I see your point listed above, but why should they need warrants for taps for suspected terrorists? Isn't the whole idea to nip it in the butt and keep it quiet before it gets to the public. I TOTALLY agree with your point and the other people's points on here about having a warrant for wiretaps...BUT.....if it deals with terrorism, you shouldn't need to get one. But I think I am beginning to realize something....how do we know if they are actual taps with suspected terrorists? That is where I think the fault lays....

ReadyontheRight
December 30, 2005, 11:43 AM
I agree with many here on THR that this falls in line with eternal vigilence to ensure we don't trade away liberty for safety.

However, it makes me sick how so many Democrat politicians pundits are suddenly born-again Constitutionalists in their witch hunt to create another Watergate.

Geno
December 30, 2005, 11:44 AM
"Damned Lies and Statistics"

"How to Lie with Statistics"

Inasmuch as I am a graduate school, research professor, I have seen all too many times how people lie, distort, bend, stretch, cut, hide, murder, pillage and plunder to make the numbers and words mean what they "want them to mean". My favorite words out of my graduate students, “Researchers PROVED it!”

64%? Not!

Doc2005 :barf:

LawDog
December 30, 2005, 11:46 AM
Would those 64% still support the NSA domestic spying if they knew how these powers were abused? Like the NSA spying on Quakers. Or the NSA spying on churches, then the feds threatening to revoke their non-profit status because a priest or pastor gave what they interpreted to be an anti-Iraq war sermon?

Do you have a link to these churches? If not, the name of the church and town/city where it's located will do.

Thanks.

LawDog

ceetee
December 30, 2005, 12:05 PM
I see your point listed above, but why should they need warrants for taps for suspected terrorists? Isn't the whole idea to nip it in the butt and keep it quiet before it gets to the public. I TOTALLY agree with your point and the other people's points on here about having a warrant for wiretaps...BUT.....if it deals with terrorism, you shouldn't need to get one. But I think I am beginning to realize something....how do we know if they are actual taps with suspected terrorists? That is where I think the fault lays....

Like when the "terrorists" are actually Quaker ministers, and his congregation...

edited to add this link to the Quaker story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

Derby FALs
December 30, 2005, 12:12 PM
Do you have a link to these churches? If not, the name of the church and town/city where it's located will do.

Thanks.

LawDog


Lake Worth, FLA Quaker church.

LJWebster1
December 30, 2005, 12:19 PM
I see a distinct difference here, and it exists with all law enforcement agencies. What happens if an officer searches a dwelling without a warrant? Does the officer go to jail? is that a crime? No, but any evidence obtained in that search cannot be used at trial. In order to protect all of our rights, we as a society are willing to allow some criminals to get off on "technicalities" to keep law enforcement in line.

The same applies here. From what I have read, the Justice Department told the President he would not be able to use information obtained with warrantless wiretaps at trial. Warrantless wiretaps have been used very rarely, and with the knowledge that use of the evidence in prosecution would not be possible, they have used this tool for prevention only.

So I ask you, where is the loss of civil liberties? If you are not prosecuted for your intercepted conversation, how have you suffered? I would ask the same thing of the Patriot Act. Can anyone actually give me one example of a person losing any civil liberties as a result of the Patriot Act?

And, by the way, in war time, we violate civil liberties all the time. What the heck is the draft if not an extreme violation of civil liberties? FIght in a war or you will go to jail!! How about putting Japanese in internment camps? Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the civil war. Martial law can be declared in war time. Curfews, rationing, etc.

Keep in mind that we are at war here, folks. I think this Administration has done a spectactular job at prosecuting this war as well as they have, and violating civil rights (ours and everyone elses) as LITTLE as they have!

captain obvious
December 30, 2005, 12:25 PM
:banghead:
And what percentage of American colonists supported the revolution? Just because something is in the majority doesn't mean it's right or lawful.

cbsbyte
December 30, 2005, 12:27 PM
Well 64% of American are going to lose their rights, while the rest of us will be fighting to keep them.

Satch
December 30, 2005, 12:28 PM
It shows that the Democrat leadership and Media news are on the wrong side of the issue again.
Umm,----------please destroy this message after you've read it.:uhoh:

Bartholomew Roberts
December 30, 2005, 12:34 PM
Whether they are actual terrorists or not isn't the question. The problem with the current administration's policy is that the President is claiming to be the sole authority to determine:

A) Who gets monitored by NSA
B) Whether or not that monitoring is legal

That isn't the way this country works - checks and balances and all. One of the purposes of FISA is to make sure the judiciary can check the power of the executive to conduct unlimited J. Edgar Hoover style surveillance.

Also, previous Presidents have maintained that they had the authority to order such searches despite FISA; but none have ever come right out and said that they did in fact order such searches.

Finally, a problem that has popped up now is that the lawyers for several people who appear quite clearly to be terrorists or sympathetic to them are now going to court and saying that the FISA warrant used to obtain evidence against them is tainted because the administration used information obtained by warrantless searches to get the FISA warrant without telling the court.

benEzra
December 30, 2005, 12:37 PM
How was the question worded? If it was like this:

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

then it doesn't say a darn thing about ILLEGAL wiretaps. Somebody who supports wiretaps with a valid warrant through the FISA process (which the administration circumvented, hence the controversy) would vote yes on that poll if so worded.

Anyone know what the actual question was?

xd9fan
December 30, 2005, 12:42 PM
and in related news.....

public schools dumbing down the children....

americans still using thier Govt as a way to control people not as a power that must be limited to secure individual liberty.....

xd9fan feels like a whack-job in these current anti-liberty pro-Govt times......:uhoh:

cracked butt
December 30, 2005, 12:55 PM
It suprises me that only 64% support the government doing one of the few duties outlined in the constitution that the government is supposed to do: protect the property and people of this country. I'm guessing that the majority of the other 36% believe that government exists mainly for the purpose of being the welfare sugardaddy that its become.

dasmi
December 30, 2005, 01:01 PM
In relation to the thread, I think 64% of Americans are smart. Gee, only W is trying to PREVENT terrorism in the US. Gee, I wonder why the other 36% is against it? Maybe they ought to read into the NSA wiretaps and see what it is about before going "OMG, my rights, my rights, my civil liberties.

When Bush does something about the border, I might buy the claim that he's trying to keep us safe. Not until then.
And for the record, the Bill of Rights is not negotiable. Ever. No matter what. Period. I'm sorry you are willing to give up your rights for some "safety." I am not.

It suprises me that only 64% support the government doing one of the few duties outlined in the constitution that the government is supposed to do: protect the property and people of this country. I'm guessing that the majority of the other 36% believe that government exists mainly for the purpose of being the welfare sugardaddy that its become.

And you would be wrong.

xd9fan
December 30, 2005, 01:01 PM
It suprises me that only 64% support the government doing one of the few duties outlined in the constitution that the government is supposed to do: protect the property and people of this country. I'm guessing that the majority of the other 36% believe that government exists mainly for the purpose of being the welfare sugardaddy that its become.


it can do one of the duties outlined just so long as the fed govt knows what the Hell the Bill of Rights are

cropcirclewalker
December 30, 2005, 01:05 PM
It suprises me that only 64% support the government doing one of the few duties outlined in the constitution that the government is supposed to do: protect the property and people of this country. I'm guessing that the majority of the other 36% believe that government exists mainly for the purpose of being the welfare sugardaddy that its become. Sounds like doublespeak to me.

Ignorance is strength. War is peace.

Perhaps the best way to protect the property and people would be to put the property into the nature conservancy with a big wall and guards and the people in a compound surrounded by barbed wire to keep the terrorists away.

No matter how the argument is phrased one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

The Drew
December 30, 2005, 01:08 PM
I see your point listed above, but why should they need warrants for taps for suspected terrorists? Isn't the whole idea to nip it in the butt and keep it quiet before it gets to the public. I TOTALLY agree with your point and the other people's points on here about having a warrant for wiretaps...BUT.....if it deals with terrorism, you shouldn't need to get one. But I think I am beginning to realize something....how do we know if they are actual taps with suspected terrorists? That is where I think the fault lays....


They need warrants because that is the way things are done I.E. The law. If you've been following this story at all, you'll know that they can wiretap first, then get a warrant after the fact. IF this had been done, I'd have no problem.

MechAg94
December 30, 2005, 01:10 PM
Whether they are actual terrorists or not isn't the question. The problem with the current administration's policy is that the President is claiming to be the sole authority to determine:

A) Who gets monitored by NSA
B) Whether or not that monitoring is legal

That isn't the way this country works - checks and balances and all. One of the purposes of FISA is to make sure the judiciary can check the power of the executive to conduct unlimited J. Edgar Hoover style surveillance.

Also, previous Presidents have maintained that they had the authority to order such searches despite FISA; but none have ever come right out and said that they did in fact order such searches.

Finally, a problem that has popped up now is that the lawyers for several people who appear quite clearly to be terrorists or sympathetic to them are now going to court and saying that the FISA warrant used to obtain evidence against them is tainted because the administration used information obtained by warrantless searches to get the FISA warrant without telling the court.

That is not entirely true. Bush is claiming the Constitutional authority to authorize this stuff w/o a court order. A whole bunch of people in the judicial and Congressional branches of government have been kept informed on this including some Democrats. If they want to put a stop to it, they can try. They haven't.
Before the FISA court was created, past Presidents still claimed the authority to conduct spying activities without direct oversight. A radio show yesterday was playing quotes from Benjamin Franklin on the subject of spying and informing the Continental Congress of their efforts to bring France into the war. Something about too many people in the know and no secret can be kept.

Ermac
December 30, 2005, 01:16 PM
When Bush does something about the border, I might buy the claim that he's trying to keep us safe. Not until then.
And for the record, the Bill of Rights is not negotiable. Ever. No matter what. Period. I'm sorry you are willing to give up your rights for some "safety." I am not.

And you would be wrong.

what rights are we talking about that have been taken away by Bush? Please elaborate this to me. Have you lost all of your civil liberties? What has been taken away from you? Has something happened to you? Oh and doing nothing about the border? The "wall" (:neener: ) that might be built, the support of the minute men...hmm, nothing being done. But besides the point, please tell me about your loss of civil liberties. And no, Im not going to give up any rights, because NONE HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY.

Rant Off.

dasmi
December 30, 2005, 01:20 PM
The wall that "might" be built?
How about enforcing our current laws regarding illegals?
How about going after large companies that hire them?

As far as civil rights, it does not matter if, I, personally have not been wiretapped without a warrant. If ANY American citizen has been, then it impacts us all.

TallPine
December 30, 2005, 01:23 PM
why should they need warrants for taps for suspected terrorists?
Because it is the law: 4th Amendment and FISA :rolleyes:

It's not like they can't get the warrants easily enough - there is a special secret court just to approve (or in very rare cases deny) the warrants.

But King George apparently can't be bothered with the paperwork.

Ermac
December 30, 2005, 01:24 PM
The wall that "might" be built?
How about enforcing our current laws regarding illegals?
How about going after large companies that hire them?

As far as civil rights, it does not matter if, I, personally have not been wiretapped without a warrant. If ANY American citizen has been, then it impacts us all.

So wait, you just said "It does not matter if I personally", but you still didn't answer my question, What Civil liberties are we giving up for the government monitoring for terrorism to protect the citizens? And of course it Impacts us all...if a suspected terrorist has been tapped and questioned about the call, then of course it impacts us - it impacts us by not being on the recieving end of another terrorist attack.

dasmi
December 30, 2005, 01:26 PM
If an American citizen is a terror suspect, get a warrant. Period. That's the law.
One day, the government might call me a "Terror suspect."
I own some guns, I'm not particularly fond of the current, or previous administration, etc. One day they might call you a terror suspect as well.

Biker
December 30, 2005, 01:27 PM
what rights are we talking about that have been taken away by Bush? Please elaborate this to me. Have you lost all of your civil liberties? What has been taken away from you? Has something happened to you? Oh and doing nothing about the border? The "wall" (:neener: ) that might be built, the support of the minute men...hmm, nothing being done. But besides the point, please tell me about your loss of civil liberties. And no, Im not going to give up any rights, because NONE HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY.

Rant Off.
The support of the Minute Men? The same Minute Men Jorge described as vigilantes?
The wall that might be built? Huh. Strange that the idea came up just before the mid-term elections.
C'mon, man...
Biker

Ermac
December 30, 2005, 01:33 PM
If an American citizen is a terror suspect, get a warrant. Period. That's the law.
One day, the government might call me a "Terror suspect."
I own some guns, I'm not particularly fond of the current, or previous administration, etc. One day they might call you a terror suspect as well.


As long as you have no ties to any terrorist organizations and are not making calls over-seas to Islamic Countries to known terrorist groups, then I dought you will be called a "Terror suspect". I think we should have been doing these wiretaps BEFORE 9/11...maybe it then could have been prevented. We do not know how many possible terror attacks that have been prevented since 9/11. I trust the current administration and its policies.

dasmi
December 30, 2005, 01:36 PM
It does not matter what ties I have with whom! Wiretaps on American citizens are illegal without a warrant. If someone is suspected of having ties to terrorism, get a warrant. End of story.

I think we should have been doing these wiretaps BEFORE 9/11...maybe it then could have been prevented.
No, our government should've been paying closer attention after Beruit, and the first WTC bombing, and the bombing of the USS Cole.
We do not know how many possible terror attacks that have been prevented since 9/11. I trust the current administration and its policies.
You're right, we don't. Maybe 100, maybe none.
I don't trust the current administrator, or the previous one, or the one before that.

Ermac
December 30, 2005, 01:39 PM
It does not matter what ties I have with whom! Wiretaps on American citizens are illegal without a warrant. If someone is suspected of having ties to terrorism, get a warrant. End of story.

No, our government should've been paying closer attention after Beruit, and the first WTC bombing, and the bombing of the USS Cole.

You're right, we don't. Maybe 100, maybe none.
I don't trust the current administrator, or the previous one, or the one before that.

Talk to Mr. Klinton on paying closer attention to national security who it was proven that we could have had bin laden during his term instead of getting head from Monica.

So basically what you are trying to say that it is ok to have talks with known terrorist organizations that could threaten the national security of our country and it is illegal for the government to try to prevent that...I am really confused. I could keep going on, but I'm not.

Have a great and safe new year.

dasmi
December 30, 2005, 01:58 PM
So basically what you are trying to say that it is ok to have talks with known terrorist organizations that could threaten the national security of our country and it is illegal for the government to try to prevent that...I am really confused. I could keep going on, but I'm not.
No. I am saying that the government MUST get a warrant to spy on American citizens. That's all.

Bartholomew Roberts
December 30, 2005, 02:02 PM
That is not entirely true. Bush is claiming the Constitutional authority to authorize this stuff w/o a court order. A whole bunch of people in the judicial and Congressional branches of government have been kept informed on this including some Democrats. If they want to put a stop to it, they can try. They haven't.

Informing a few select members of Congress isn't exactly the same as having a full Congress check the executive on this issue. As long as the number is limited to a few that the Executive selects, how hard is it to coopt them by offering support for some pet project? Especially if you get to hand pick which ones you will inform. Also, which members of the judiciary were informed according to your information?

Before the FISA court was created, past Presidents still claimed the authority to conduct spying activities without direct oversight. A radio show yesterday was playing quotes from Benjamin Franklin on the subject of spying and informing the Continental Congress of their efforts to bring France into the war. Something about too many people in the know and no secret can be kept.

All of the past powers relate to gathering intelligence on foreign powers, not American citizens. There were limited exceptions for American citizens acting as agents of foreign governments - that exception was eventually broadened to where it included a whole lot of people, enough that FISA was enacted to reign in back in.

I'd also note that the J. Edgar Hoover style of surveillance of domestic citizens was geared as much towards the accumulation of politcal power through blackmail as much as it was security. I think FISA was a step in the right direction and I am not going to vote for any party that wants to take a step backwards from that.

dpesec
December 30, 2005, 02:02 PM
well we're seeing the start of a dangerous slide. Very similar to what happened in Rome. People wanted security and traded the "do nothing Senate" for it. I hope and pray I'm wrong.

One of the principles of the Constitution was to protect the minority from the majority. Safeguards built in are being ignored.

ReadyontheRight
December 30, 2005, 02:35 PM
Maybe those who know Constitutional law better than I can answer this one:

Are the warrants required to perform the wiretaps or to prosecute?

Scenario:

A. Osama Bin Laden calls my number from a known terrorist cell phone outside the U.S.
B. Osama tells me to get my d%$& cat out of his garage
C. I tell OBL I don't have a cat
D. OBL tells me "That's OK A&$#*&&, I don't have a cat either" while his terrorists chuckle in the background and he hangs up
E. The NSA monitors my calls for the next few days, determines I am a rather boring non-terrorist and just a subject of OBL's prank phone call.

Why bother getting the ex-post facto warrant if they have nothing on me...no case whatsoever?

ReadyontheRight
December 30, 2005, 02:36 PM
well we're seeing the start of a dangerous slide. Very similar to what happened in Rome. People wanted security and traded the "do nothing Senate" for it. I hope and pray I'm wrong.

One of the principles of the Constitution was to protect the minority from the majority. Safeguards built in are being ignored.


Isn't the fact that GWB told us the truth and we are all discussing it the biggest safeguard of all?

Guy B. Meredith
December 30, 2005, 02:37 PM
A major part of the problem is that most people haven't the faintest idea of what the NSA is or does. There are several levels at which intelligence can be collected.

NSA can do--and probably is doing--a very high level 'separate the wheat from the chaff' intelligence without the least bit intruding on anyone's privacy.

Too many people jumping the gun, so to speak, and exercising their inalienable right to knee jerk paranoia. Particularly when political hay can be made of it.

(Amazing number of old timey phrases there.)

pax
December 30, 2005, 02:48 PM
I wonder what percentage of Americans support reasonable regulations about firearms?

pax

R.H. Lee
December 30, 2005, 02:58 PM
I'm surprised it's that low. It means 36% of Americans are asleep.

LawDog
December 30, 2005, 03:11 PM
Originally Posted by Don'tTreadOnMe
Would those 64% still support the NSA domestic spying if they knew how these powers were abused? Like the NSA spying on Quakers. Or the NSA spying on churches, then the feds threatening to revoke their non-profit status because a priest or pastor gave what they interpreted to be an anti-Iraq war sermon?

Do you have a link to these churches? If not, the name of the church and town/city where it's located will do.

Thanks.

LawDog

Quote:
Originally Posted by LawDog
Do you have a link to these churches? If not, the name of the church and town/city where it's located will do.

Thanks.

LawDog

Lake Worth, FLA Quaker church.

Hmm.

Lake worth, Florida: "The Truth project", a Florida peace group/anti-war group met at the local Quaker meeting house. They were monitored and reported as possible "threatening".

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=5687
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1658&issue_id=80
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/print/1/displaymode/1098/

I must have missed the "threatening to revoke their non-profit status because a priest or pastor gave what they interpreted to be an anti-Iraq war sermon" part there.

Granted, having an undercover agent sitting in the back row of your open meetings taking notes is a Bad Thing (Mental note: Reporter sitting in back row taking notes = good, Fed sitting next to him taking notes = bad ... I guess), but I'm more interested in the threatening part referenced in the first quote.

LawDog

Biker
December 30, 2005, 03:11 PM
Isn't the fact that GWB told us the truth and we are all discussing it the biggest safeguard of all?
We're not sure that Bush *is* telling the truth at this point and we're only discussing the matter because the story was published over the Admin's protests.
Biker

Krenn
December 30, 2005, 03:32 PM
here's a scenario for all the pro-wiretappers.

What happens when one of the computer programmers or math PHD's gets a warrantless wiretap placed on several lnternational brokers on Wall street?

They do business with the mid-east, so there's enough reason to convinve the NSA bosses, if not a court.

then they just send copies of the recordings to their old college buddies who went into stockbroking instead of intellegence work.

instead Insider trading. No warrant, no paper trail, no public disclosure... no one outside the NSA can prove a thing.

and the bussiness go broke because someone's always two steps ahead of them, mining the profits the bussiness spotted first.

ReadyontheRight
December 30, 2005, 03:41 PM
We're not sure that Bush *is* telling the truth at this point and we're only discussing the matter because the story was published over the Admin's protests.

It's so easy to find Diane Feinstein's comments on this, but so difficult to find our President's words:

...After September the 11th, one question my administration had to answer was how, using the authorities I have, how do we effectively detect enemies hiding in our midst and prevent them from striking us again? We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives. To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks.

So, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, I authorized the interception of international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. This program is carefully reviewed approximately every 45 days to ensure it is being used properly. Leaders in the United States Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this program. And it has been effective in disrupting the enemy, while safeguarding our civil liberties.

This program has targeted those with known links to al Qaeda. I've reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as our nation is -- for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens. ...

...Q -- why, in the four years since 9/11, has your administration not sought to get changes in the law instead of bypassing it, as some of your critics have said?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. First, I want to make clear to the people listening that this program is limited in nature to those that are known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates. That's important. So it's a program that's limited, and you brought up something that I want to stress, and that is, is that these calls are not intercepted within the country. They are from outside the country to in the country, or vice versa. So in other words, this is not a -- if you're calling from Houston to L.A., that call is not monitored. And if there was ever any need to monitor, there would be a process to do that.

I think I've got the authority to move forward, Kelly. I mean, this is what -- and the Attorney General was out briefing this morning about why it's legal to make the decisions I'm making. I can fully understand why members of Congress are expressing concerns about civil liberties. I know that. And it's -- I share the same concerns. I want to make sure the American people understand, however, that we have an obligation to protect you, and we're doing that and, at the same time, protecting your civil liberties.

Secondly, an open debate about law would say to the enemy, here is what we're going to do. And this is an enemy which adjusts. We monitor this program carefully. We have consulted with members of the Congress over a dozen times. We are constantly reviewing the program. Those of us who review the program have a duty to uphold the laws of the United States, and we take that duty very seriously.

Sounded to me that GWB has been very open about the NSA intercepts.

ReadyontheRight
December 30, 2005, 03:49 PM
here's a scenario for all the pro-wiretappers.

What happens when one of the computer programmers or math PHD's gets a warrantless wiretap placed on several lnternational brokers on Wall street?

They do business with the mid-east, so there's enough reason to convinve the NSA bosses, if not a court.

then they just send copies of the recordings to their old college buddies who went into stockbroking instead of intellegence work.

instead Insider trading. No warrant, no paper trail, no public disclosure... no one outside the NSA can prove a thing.

and the bussiness go broke because someone's always two steps ahead of them, mining the profits the bussiness spotted first.

Here's a scenario --

What if we know Osama Bin Laden is communicating with his minions through cellular phones and we can listen in on their conversations?

What if our methods for listening to these conversations are leaked to the press and OBL reads this in the news?

What if years later he orgainzes an attack on US soil but knows NOT to use cell phones, so no one sees it coming?

I'm not saying warantless wiretapping is the answer, I would just like to point out that there are no easy answers.

ka50
December 30, 2005, 04:12 PM
Another Newsflash....you are Stupid! Awesome post! Good way to contribute.


In relation to the thread, I think 64% of Americans are smart. Gee, only W is trying to PREVENT terrorism in the US. Gee, I wonder why the other 36% is against it? Maybe they ought to read into the NSA wiretaps and see what it is about before going "OMG, my rights, my rights, my civil liberties." :banghead:

u joking right?

LJWebster1
December 30, 2005, 04:46 PM
When you say it is the law to get a warrant either before or after the fact, that is just plain wrong. The US Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that even American citizens lose some of their rights when they leave the US, and that those living outside the US have very few Constitutional protections, whether American or not. In addition, the US Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that wartime actions of the President have a much greater lattitude than non-war time. I cannot fathom anyone having this conversation during WWII if someone in the US was receiving calls from Nazi headquarters. How stupid would we be to say, "Well, we better get a warrant before we tap that phone call. I guess old Adolph just wants to check up on his favorite niece in America." Sheesh, get a clue people, we are at war here! Sometimes I think the worst thing that ever happened to this country was to get such a good military that we in this country think we are invincible.

Finally, the fact that the Administration obtained warrants in the VAST majority of cases suggests to me that those few times they didn't was either (1) it wasn't worth it (the cat story above), or (2) there was a national security issue with getting the warrant.

dasmi
December 30, 2005, 04:48 PM
Was war ever declared?

LJWebster1
December 30, 2005, 04:48 PM
here's a scenario for all the pro-wiretappers.

What happens when one of the computer programmers or math PHD's gets a warrantless wiretap placed on several lnternational brokers on Wall street?

They do business with the mid-east, so there's enough reason to convinve the NSA bosses, if not a court.

then they just send copies of the recordings to their old college buddies who went into stockbroking instead of intellegence work.

instead Insider trading. No warrant, no paper trail, no public disclosure... no one outside the NSA can prove a thing.

and the bussiness go broke because someone's always two steps ahead of them, mining the profits the bussiness spotted first.


Krenn, couldn't they do that anyway? If no one would ever know, then how would we know they didn't get a warrant? The fact that we know there have been warrantless wiretaps leads me to believe that the process is more transparent then you are positing.

Derby FALs
December 30, 2005, 05:23 PM
Talk to Mr. Klinton on paying closer attention to national security who it was proven that we could have had bin laden during his term instead of getting head from Monica.

So basically what you are trying to say that it is ok to have talks with known terrorist organizations that could threaten the national security of our country and it is illegal for the government to try to prevent that...I am really confused. I could keep going on, but I'm not.

Have a great and safe new year.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

You may be on the list and never know it. Do you realize they have babies on the terrorist "No Fly" lists?
:neener:

MechAg94
December 30, 2005, 05:37 PM
here's a scenario for all the pro-wiretappers.

What happens when one of the computer programmers or math PHD's gets a warrantless wiretap placed on several lnternational brokers on Wall street?

They do business with the mid-east, so there's enough reason to convinve the NSA bosses, if not a court.

then they just send copies of the recordings to their old college buddies who went into stockbroking instead of intellegence work.

instead Insider trading. No warrant, no paper trail, no public disclosure... no one outside the NSA can prove a thing.

and the bussiness go broke because someone's always two steps ahead of them, mining the profits the bussiness spotted first.
Govt employees have spied for foreign nations before. I am sure they could easily spy for companies just the same. A hacker might get into their computer system and get the same information. An employee of those brokers might pass that information to someone else. I think this analogy is a bit of a reach.

MechAg94
December 30, 2005, 05:45 PM
Informing a few select members of Congress isn't exactly the same as having a full Congress check the executive on this issue. As long as the number is limited to a few that the Executive selects, how hard is it to coopt them by offering support for some pet project? Especially if you get to hand pick which ones you will inform. Also, which members of the judiciary were informed according to your information?

Classified information and investigations are NEVER passed to the entire Congress. They never have been. That is the purpose of those oversight committees that they use. Congress and each party selects who will be on those committees, not the President. If you never want the Govt to keep another secret ever again, by all means, tell everything to every Congressman (and all their key staffers by default). Deal making goes on in Congress all the time and has for 200 years I am sure. If deal making is going on with National Security issues, we have more to worry about than this (we have more to worrry about I am sure).

I heard the head of the FISA court was kept informed of the wire tap activities.

roo_ster
December 30, 2005, 05:57 PM
Here's a scenario that pro & anti NSA tap folks ought to consider:
1. OBL, in Screwedupistan, picks up his phone, on which the NSA/CIA/whomever has a tap.
2. OBL dials Joe Jihad, and American citizen located in New York City.

What action are the spooks supposed to take?
A. Keep listening (Hey, OBL is a terrorist communicating with his sleeper agent!! And OBL's in Screwedupistan, not in the USA.)
B. Turn off the tap until OBL is done speaking with Joe Jihad & maybe get a warrant later. (Hey, JJ is an American citizen!! He is also on American soil!!)

---------------

Here's another scenario to chew over:
1. OBL, in Screwedupistan, picks up his phone, on which the NSA/CIA/whomever has a tap.
2. OBL dials some number, but it is routed through VOIP & the actual location of the other speaker can not be immediately determined.

What action are the spooks supposed to take?
A. Keep listening (Hey, OBL is a terrorist communicating with his sleeper agent!! And OBL's in Screwedupistan, not in the USA.)
B. Turn off the tap until OBL is done speaking. (Hey, he may be taking to an American citizen on American soil!! We can't risk that without a warrant!!)

Twist to above scenario:
It is later (96 hours or so) determined to be Tamil D. Terrorist's phone in Chicago, Illinois. Tamil is an American citizen.

What do you do with the intel developed?

-----------------

I'm not trying to be a smart@$$. These scenarios (or something like them) probably occur every day & our spooks have ot make some sort of decision.

----------------

Informing a few select members of Congress isn't exactly the same as having a full Congress check the executive on this issue. As long as the number is limited to a few that the Executive selects, how hard is it to coopt them by offering support for some pet project? Especially if you get to hand pick which ones you will inform. Also, which members of the judiciary were informed according to your information?
Among those who are in the know are the chairmen and ranking members (RM=Democrats) of the House & Senate Intel Committees. Those RMs are not patsys or political allies of GWB (Jay Rockefeller, D WVA, being one). GWB generally has to clear all these sorts of fun & games with the Democrats. This was happening all this time and there was no great cry against it & only one CYA note was found (from Rockefeller to VP Cheney) stating (essentially), "I don't really understand what youse guys are doing, technology-wise."

The Drew
December 30, 2005, 06:08 PM
Here's a scenario that pro & anti NSA tap folks ought to consider:
1. OBL, in Screwedupistan, picks up his phone, on which the NSA/CIA/whomever has a tap.
2. OBL dials Joe Jihad, and American citizen located in New York City.

What action are the spooks supposed to take?
A. Keep listening (Hey, OBL is a terrorist communicating with his sleeper agent!! And OBL's in Screwedupistan, not in the USA.)
B. Turn off the tap until OBL is done speaking with Joe Jihad & maybe get a warrant later. (Hey, JJ is an American citizen!! He is also on American soil!!)



This is an invalid situation, If they are tapping UBL's phone, that is completely different, and the person he is calling or who is calling them is covered under the tap. Since UBL isn't here in the US they can tap his phone all day as long as it's kosher with the host government. AND the physical tap is outside the US.

BTW, We are NOT at war. We are involved in a police action to wipe out terrorism.

War must be declared by congress. Never happened. War powers should not be granted when the nation is NOT at war.

Bartholomew Roberts
December 30, 2005, 06:09 PM
Classified information and investigations are NEVER passed to the entire Congress. They never have been. That is the purpose of those oversight committees that they use. Congress and each party selects who will be on those committees, not the President. If you never want the Govt to keep another secret ever again, by all means, tell everything to every Congressman (and all their key staffers by default). Deal making goes on in Congress all the time and has for 200 years I am sure. If deal making is going on with National Security issues, we have more to worry about than this (we have more to worrry about I am sure).

Yes; but were all the members of the Intelligence oversight committees informed? At least the senior opposition party member and the Chairman if no one else? So far the only people I've heard acknowledge that they knew what was going on are Rockefeller and Pelosi.

I heard the head of the FISA court was kept informed of the wire tap activities.

I heard he wasn't. Doesn't anybody have a source that actually addresses that issue? Considering that at least one of the judges on the FISA court resigned when he was told about the monitoring, I find it surprising that any judge on the FISA court would know about this and say nothing to his fellow appointees.

What action are the spooks supposed to take?
A. Keep listening (Hey, OBL is a terrorist communicating with his sleeper agent!! And OBL's in Screwedupistan, not in the USA.)
B. Turn off the tap until OBL is done speaking with Joe Jihad & maybe get a warrant later. (Hey, JJ is an American citizen!! He is also on American soil!!)

Check out section 4 "Collections" of this declassified and redacted document (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB23/07-01.htm). It details the processes the U.S. used in 1993 to govern some of the hypotheticals you suggest. Under the Patriot Act, the President can already start monitoring any American citizen and ask for the warrant from FISA later. Also since FISA is a secret court, there is no disclosure harmful to U.S. intelligence.

So why didn't the Bush administration do that? That question bugs me.

JohnBT
December 30, 2005, 06:16 PM
"Was war ever declared?"

Have you seen the film of those two big buildings falling down in New York?

How about the bombed barracks in Beruit?

How about...oh, nevermind. :banghead:

John

Old Dog
December 30, 2005, 06:25 PM
"Was war ever declared?"Where have you been? I've seen at least twenty or so videos of various Islamic jihad leaders stating in no uncertain terms that they have declared war on the U.S. -- and all our allies.

So why didn't the Bush administration do that? That question bugs me.Still a valid question, and one that needs to be asked until it's really answered ... the President claims for the sake of expediency and to prevent leaks ... who really knows? Certainly we are not privvy to the intel he sees, so hopefully at some point -- sooner than later -- the Americans will know the answer, as our citizenry must ... otherwise, it would seem to prove that our system of checks and balances has been perverted beyond redemption.

dasmi
December 30, 2005, 06:31 PM
Was war ever declared, in the legal, congressional sense, by OUR government? No, it was not. I am not denying that the terrorists are at war with us, they very much are. But we aren't at war with them. We are involved in yet another "police action."

Sungun09
December 30, 2005, 06:44 PM
64% agree that ANY wiretap is legal including one targeting themselves...

It means we are becomming a police state...

It means 64% of the people think someone is smarter than themselves in understanding he constitution..

To the 64% I say "seig heil " Study your history books. It's coming...again..

ajax
December 30, 2005, 06:57 PM
I have one thing to say on the subject and one thing only. For all of you who have such a problem with tapping known terrorists. When or if the next 9/11 happens you will be the very people bitching how the goverment should of done more. When or if the next 9/11 happens I hope its you and your gettin smoked and not me and mine.

Biker
December 30, 2005, 07:01 PM
I have one thing to say on the subject and one thing only. For all of you who have such a problem with tapping known terrorists. When or if the next 9/11 happens you will be the very people bitching how the goverment should of done more. When or if the next 9/11 happens I hope its you and your gettin smoked and not me and mine.
If the 'tappers' are so sure that the 'tappees' are "known terrorists", there should be no problem getting after-the-fact warrants, should there?
So why aren't they?
Biker

Kiwi98J
December 30, 2005, 07:02 PM
Here's a scenario that pro & anti NSA tap folks ought to consider:

Here is what NSA did do in regard to your scenarios. I can’t speak to the current situation.

1. OBL, in Screwedupistan, picks up his phone, on which the NSA/CIA/whomever has a tap.

The data component of the signal is collected as it is being emitted from outside the US and as it is a priority tasking as a signal of “high interest”, analysis starts immediately.

2. OBL dials Joe Jihad, and American citizen located in New York City.

Because the signal from Joe Jihad is being emitted from inside the US and is part of a communications to a source of “high interest” it is collected and immediately analyzed. If the information is deemed to be of value and meets “probable cause” NSA seeks a warrant from FISC within 36 hours. If analysis determines the information is of no value, contact is terminated and collected data destroyed.

1. OBL, in Screwedupistan, picks up his phone, on which the NSA/CIA/whomever has a tap.
2. OBL dials some number, but it is routed through VOIP & the actual location of the other speaker can not be immediately determined.

Same as above. No warrant is required as the signal can not be confirmed as being emitted from inside the US.

Twist to above scenario:
It is later (96 hours or so) determined to be Tamil D. Terrorist's phone in Chicago, Illinois. Tamil is an American citizen.
What do you do with the intel developed?

The intercept is recorded and analysed. When the source is determined to be from inside the US, the warrant is sought. The 36 hour clock starts when it is determined the signal originated from inside the US.

I'm not trying to be a smart@$$. These scenarios (or something like them) probably occur every day & our spooks have ot make some sort of decision.

You are correct – not every day but often enough that procedures are well understood.

Kiwi98J
December 30, 2005, 07:13 PM
If the 'tappers' are so sure that the 'tappees' are "known terrorists", there should be no problem getting after-the-fact warrants, should there?
So why aren't they? Biker

Nope - no problem at all as all but 5 warrants sought since 1978 have been denyed and those denyed physicl search only and subsequently led to the 1992 amendment to the FISA law to allow physicl search - the Aldrich Ames spy case.

Because President Bush issued a secret executive order that they did not have to seek the warrants.

GoRon
December 30, 2005, 07:43 PM
Just caught a guy on the news explaining why they don't use the after the fact warrants.

Even though a warrant is granted any info on US citizens is removed from the reports given to the FBI.

So the NSA listens in on Osama Bin Laden talking with Usa Terrorist about the next event in the USA.

The NSA gets the retroactive warrant.

They pass along the info to the FBI minus any info on the US citizen. No name, phone number or any parts of the conversation spoken by the US citizen. They can hand over half the info they gathered and anything after the warrant was issued.

If this is true then it sounds like the FISA rules need to be changed to allow the proper flow of intel.

Mad Chemist
December 30, 2005, 07:53 PM
It's a bloody web poll. Far from scientific, leading question, unnaturally confined responses(only yes/no), and no published methodology.:banghead:

In summation--it's meaningless.:banghead:

If this was performed by Zogby or any other reputable polling firm that publishes their methodology and relies on data collection methods besides mouse clicking, then it might mean something.

The host site doesn't even pretend to be impartial.

This begs the question, why post it?
It's obviously flawed and useful for little more than starting another flame-war.

Mad Chemist
December 30, 2005, 08:01 PM
Newsflash........ 64% of Americans are stupid.

Come on friend. You can do better than that.
How about 49% of Americans have below average intelligence.:cool: :D

The most widely believed lies are commonly known as statistics. If you don't understand how they are gathered, compiled, and interpreted, then they can be very misleading.
JH

BTW, for a great compilation of tortured stats, check out the Brady Campaign's web site.:D

Wllm. Legrand
December 30, 2005, 08:11 PM
When Bush does something about the border, I might buy the claim that he's trying to keep us safe. Not until then.
And for the record, the Bill of Rights is not negotiable. Ever. No matter what. Period. I'm sorry you are willing to give up your rights for some "safety." I am not.


Well said.

Here's a guy on this board with whom I can agree.

Hawkmoon
December 30, 2005, 08:14 PM
So your saying that wiretaps FOR SUSPECTED TERRORIST ACTIVITIES are not justified? It seems like the media has got to most people. And let me ask you this, have we had ANY terrorist activities since 9/11? Oh gee, maybe we are doing something right in prevention. Besides, if your not a terrorist, you won't be wire tapped and have nothing to worry about...right?
(1) If the wiretaps are justified, then there is no reason not to have them approved by the FISA court. You know ... the court that was established specifically to approve clandestine, national security wiretaps.

(2) What do mean by "terrorist activity"? If you mean "have any more terrorists flown hijacked airliners into New York landmarks" I guess the answer must be no. However, no terrorists had done that for a couple of hundred years BEFORE 9/11 either. That clearly did not establish any proof that the government was effectively fighting terrorism. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

(3) "If you're not a terrorist, you won't be wire tapped and have nothing to worry about." Do you honestly BELIEVE that?

GoRon
December 30, 2005, 08:15 PM
When Bush does something about the border, I might buy the claim that he's trying to keep us safe. Not until then.
And for the record, the Bill of Rights is not negotiable. Ever. No matter what. Period. I'm sorry you are willing to give up your rights for some "safety." I am not.

Well said.

Here's a guy on this board with whom I can agree.

I guess the right to being considered innocent until proven guilty in a court by your peers isn't included.

Bush hatred is so transparent.

Hawkmoon
December 30, 2005, 08:18 PM
Isn't the fact that GWB told us the truth and we are all discussing it the biggest safeguard of all?
No. He told us the truth only when the truth had already been told. Admitting you committed a criminal act (even if by admitting to the act you don't acknowledge that it was a crime) does not make an illegal act legal.

TallPine
December 30, 2005, 08:20 PM
When or if the next 9/11 happens you will be the very people bitching how the goverment should of done more.
Perhaps like following up on the tips provided by flight schools concerning Arab students who only want to learn to steer a plane around in the air, and had not interest in learning to take off and land ...? :rolleyes:

It's hard to trust a govt that fails to follow up on validly obtained information, but yet wants all these new powers to spy on citizens.:uhoh:

Wllm. Legrand
December 30, 2005, 08:21 PM
what rights are we talking about that have been taken away by Bush? Please elaborate this to me. Have you lost all of your civil liberties? What has been taken away from you? Has something happened to you? Oh and doing nothing about the border? The "wall" (:neener: ) that might be built, the support of the minute men...hmm, nothing being done. But besides the point, please tell me about your loss of civil liberties. And no, Im not going to give up any rights, because NONE HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY.

Rant Off.

This is an absurd statement.

Read the Patriot Act. I have. Have you? I doubt it.

Among the errors here is the implication that "If YOU have not lost any rights, NOBODY has lost any rights."

Rendition. Kidnapping to other countries to avoid the law in this country regarding torture. Holding people in Guantanmo (yes, I know they're not "nice" people...but rights are not only for "nice people", they are for ALL people or they are worthless) in perpetuity WITHOUT BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME, NOR A DECLARATION OF WAR TO SUPPORT THE "WARTIME" rational. Nor even the Geneva convention minimums for POWs. Such B.S. and you people defend it.

I never thought in my lifetime that I would hear government officials try and justify the use of torture. If that ain't enough, I can only question what kind of an American some of you people are.

What's happened to me? Well, first, my family will not fly anymore. If someone near-assaulted my wife or daughter during one of their "security" searches, I would beat them to a pulp and then I, I would go to jail. Two, my country (which was a good country, but that was a long time ago), has been taken from me by liars from both parties.

Third, lies compounded upon lies about national security are clearly demonstrated every day by the unwillingness to actually deal with the border and immigration problem WHICH IS DE FACTO PROOF that this "War on Terror" is a straw man fomented for the goal of changing this country into what it WAS into WHAT IT IS BECOMING.

Wake up and smell the coffee, pal.

cropcirclewalker
December 30, 2005, 08:24 PM
I guess the right to being considered innocent until proven guilty in a court by your peers isn't included.

Bush hatred is so transparent. I have tried REAL hard to figger out what the heck you are talking about. Is there somewhere where you think the border is being defended?

Please elucidate.

Hawkmoon
December 30, 2005, 08:24 PM
In addition, the US Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that wartime actions of the President have a much greater lattitude than non-war time. I cannot fathom anyone having this conversation during WWII if someone in the US was receiving calls from Nazi headquarters.
WE ARE NOT AT WAR!

The Congress of the United States has NOT enacted a declaration of war. The President therefore has ZERO "wartime" powers ... regardless of what he might THINK he's entitled to because he chooses to use words like "War on Terror."

Hawkmoon
December 30, 2005, 08:30 PM
I have one thing to say on the subject and one thing only. For all of you who have such a problem with tapping known terrorists. When or if the next 9/11 happens you will be the very people bitching how the goverment should of done more. When or if the next 9/11 happens I hope its you and your gettin smoked and not me and mine.
You are 100% correct. I will be shouting from the rooftops that the .gov should have sealed our borders, expelled all illegal "immigrants," and severely limited the number of immigrants allowed from terrorist countries, as well as increasing scrutiny of applicants from such countries before issuing visas.

That IS the purpose of issuing visas, ya know. To keep out the people you don't want in.

ReadyontheRight
December 30, 2005, 08:35 PM
I never thought in my lifetime that I would hear government officials try and justify the use of torture.

Exactly who has been tortured?

Being forced to wear a dog collar by a woman isn't torture. And those who did those stipid things were punished.

It seems to me that government officials were standing up to ridiculous new laws about things that:

A. No one was doing.
B. Were already both illegal and against policy.

The new torture laws sound like ridiculous new laws like the AWB to me. Political grandstanding about nothing.

Wllm. Legrand
December 30, 2005, 08:36 PM
"Was war ever declared?"

Have you seen the film of those two big buildings falling down in New York?

How about the bombed barracks in Beruit?

How about...oh, nevermind. :banghead:

John

When you can tell my why Building No. 7 (43 story building not hit by a plane, no great fires) collapsed as the Twin Towers did, and you have answers to all of the anomalies that accompany the "standard model" of what happened to those planes, crews, and the government response, maybe your assertion about "being at war" may be valid.

Just become it becomes part of the population lexicon to say "Oh...OH...We're at WAR!" Doesn't make it so, neither does the rationale behind the invasion of Iraq to justify this "War".

Sorry. I'm too old and have heard too much B.S. to just accept what mouthpieces tell me anymore about anything, unless they can substantiate their claims and explain most inconsistencies.

I'm all ears. Or maybe you didn't know about a third building going down? Hmmmm.

GoRon
December 30, 2005, 08:38 PM
I have tried REAL hard to figger out what the heck you are talking about. Is there somewhere where you think the border is being defended?

Please elucidate.
I just cut and pasted the whole quote when the pertinent part was this
And for the record, the Bill of Rights is not negotiable. Ever. No matter what. Period. I'm sorry you are willing to give up your rights for some "safety." I am not.
Your assumption if I read you right is that the president is guilty of taking away our rights by spying on us without a warrant.

GoRon
December 30, 2005, 08:42 PM
When you can tell my why Building No. 7 (43 story building not hit by a plane, no great fires) collapsed as the Twin Towers did, and you have answers to all of the anomalies that accompany the "stanard model" of what happened to those planes, crews, and the government response, maybe your assertion about "being at war" may be valid.

I'm all ears. Or maybe you didn't know about a third building going down? Hmmmm.

Didn't President Bush give the order to "pull it" after Cheney called from the bunker and ordered him to?

cropcirclewalker
December 30, 2005, 08:42 PM
OK, maybe I understand what you were trying to say.

I wasn't the guy that made the comment, but it made sense to me.

If a president spies on us (wiretaps) without a warrant and admits it........He is guilty.

See amendment 4.

edited to add......

Hey, terrorism is bad. I agree.

Can't you see that by destroying our constution to get at the bgs that want to destroy our constitution that the bgs have won? We are doing their job for them.

The thing that dissapoints me most is that there are many here who are assisting him.

ReadyontheRight
December 30, 2005, 08:43 PM
When you can tell my why Building No. 7 (43 story building not hit by a plane, no great fires) collapsed as the Twin Towers did, and you have answers to all of the anomalies that accompany the "stanard model" of what happened to those planes, crews, and the government response, maybe your assertion about "being at war" may be valid.


Wow.

I always figured the 3rd building fell down because two of the largest buildings ever built fell down next to it ... and that all that material falling into their foundation, on the edge of an island, might somehow affect nearby buildings.

Was the 3rd building knocked down by the oil companies?

Wllm. Legrand
December 30, 2005, 08:46 PM
I guess the right to being considered innocent until proven guilty in a court by your peers isn't included.

Bush hatred is so transparent.

What's with this "considered innocent until proven guilty" pap? This isn't a GD court of law! Where does that line of reasoning come from? If Bush has been indicted by those that VOTED FOR HIM (such as myself) it is only because his attempted guile is too transparent to past the SMELL TEST.

Bush hatred? Perhaps. I voted for him and I don't like people who betray their word or lie, nor do I suffer fools well, nor do I tolerate people who abuse their authority, nor do I approve of someone breaking their oath of office.

Clear enough?

Wllm. Legrand
December 30, 2005, 08:53 PM
Exactly who has been tortured?


You are obviously someone for whom keeping up with the news is not a priority.

If you can't or won't do your homework to keep informed (which describes 85% of the American people, of whom 49% of the aggregate are below average intelligence) I won't do it for you.

Read more. There is more going on than you read in your paper and get from Sean Hannity.

Kiwi98J
December 30, 2005, 08:56 PM
Just caught a guy on the news explaining why they don't use the after the fact warrants.

Even though a warrant is granted any info on US citizens is removed from the reports given to the FBI.

So the NSA listens in on Osama Bin Laden talking with Usa Terrorist about the next event in the USA.

The NSA gets the retroactive warrant.

They pass along the info to the FBI minus any info on the US citizen. No name, phone number or any parts of the conversation spoken by the US citizen. They can hand over half the info they gathered and anything after the warrant was issued.

If this is true then it sounds like the FISA rules need to be changed to allow the proper flow of intel.

The statement is not true. All data from signals emminating from inside the US is stripped of identifying info only if NSA (actually it's the Sec of Defense) does not find the data is "of foreign intelligence interest" and "probable cause" is lacking. "Of foreign intelligence interest" means, foreign power, a foreign agent, a terrorist, aiding and abetting, etc. If NSA meets the threshold and gets the warrant, they continue collection for 45 days until the need is determined if they need to extend the collection interest.

Wllm. Legrand
December 30, 2005, 08:59 PM
Wow.

I always figured the 3rd building fell down because two of the largest buildings ever built fell down next to it ... and that all that material falling into their foundation, on the edge of an island, might somehow affect nearby buildings.

Was the 3rd building knocked down by the oil companies?

Absolutley not. Wasn't hit by debris. Look at the maps. Look at the photos and clips.

I have some..."small knowledge" of phsyics. It is easier to accept the big lies than the multitude of small ones. I spent some time looking into it, after scoffing at those who asserted inconsistencies, they must be fools to question the official line.. I apologized afterwards.

GoRon
December 30, 2005, 09:00 PM
Where does that line of reasoning come from?

Reading some of the posts on this site you would think it is a fait accompli that the Bush administration is guilty of domestic spying without a warrant or appropriate oversight.

All the bloviating and condescension in the world doesn't make it a fact. (innocent until proven guilty)

We will see when all the facts come out. Right or wrong it looks like the President was operating under the same SOP that all the recent Presidents have. It was more frequent and bigger in scale due to the GWOT.

ReadyontheRight
December 30, 2005, 09:06 PM
You are obviously someone for whom keeping up with the news is not a priority.

Well - I DO prefer to think for myself rather than re-hash the latest talking points from those who would tear down GWB by pretending to suddenly care about the Bill of Rights.

I HAVE read this though:

http://washtimes.com/national/20050714-121552-8634r_page2.htm

...Gen. Schmidt said the e-mails, and surveys of all 493 FBI agents who worked at the camp, boiled down to nine purported cases of abuse out of 24,000 interrogations. Two were unsubstantiated; five were substantiated, but authorized by the Army Field Manual or by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; and two were substantiated as unauthorized tactics that resulted in abuse.
Mr. Rumsfeld later rescinded his authorization for stress-inducing tactics after Pentagon lawyers objected. ...
Of those two substantiated incidents, in one case, a detainee was chained to the floor briefly for the protection of guards; in the other, an interrogator placed duct tape on the mouth of an inmate who refused to stop chanting. ...
...The authorized tactics included forcing him to wear women's clothes, calling him a homosexual, insulting his mother and sister as "whores," interrogating him for 20 hours a day, and having women touch him suggestively. No other prisoner was treated this way, the witnesses said. ...


Still doesn't sound like torture to this non-NY Times readin', non-NPR listenin' neanderthal.

ReadyontheRight
December 30, 2005, 09:10 PM
Absolutley not. Wasn't hit by debris.

I guess I was unclear. I didn't mean that the debris knocked the other building down. I meant that its foundation may have been affected by the collapse of two large buildings next door.

Wllm. Legrand
December 30, 2005, 09:10 PM
Well - I DO prefer to think for myself rather than re-hash the latest talking points from those who would tear down GWB by pretending to suddenly care about the Bill of Rights.

I HAVE read this though:

http://washtimes.com/national/20050714-121552-8634r_page2.htm



Still doesn't sound like torture to this non-NY Times readin', non-NPR listenin' neanderthal.

Well, good for you.

But this is not the "torture" that is being talked about. Think Poland, Romania, et al.

I would have thought you would have read the briefs re: Condi's fiasco in Europe recently..

And the civil suit regarding grabbing the wrong and he being released an now is suing...

Keep reading. I'm pullin' for ya'..

ReadyontheRight
December 30, 2005, 09:20 PM
Think Poland, Romania, et al.

Ah -- I'll keep my eyes open for Bush Administration impalings.

...the "torture" that is being talked about... That being my key point. Lots of "talk" out there. Most of it inaccurate.

Wllm. Legrand
December 30, 2005, 09:22 PM
I guess I was unclear. I didn't mean that the debris knocked the other building down. I meant that its foundation may have been affected by the collapse of two large buildings next door.

That's a good question ROTR. It's good to take such a line of reasoning (even if it is in the "thought experiment stage) to its conclusion.

The fall of Bldg. 7 in the late afternoon was as precise, as professional, as far removed from a 'probability event' as could be imagined. Virtually all newscasterrs commented on how bizarre it was that..".. today, for a THIRD TIME, a building fell with the precision of a controlled demolition".

Could ancillary and sporadic damage to a building (non-symetrical damage to it's structural integrity) make a building "pancake" into it's footprint, with the precision of a controlled demolition?

Not bloody likely.

The FedGOD 9/11 report didn't even address Building 7.

"Keep moving, folks. Nothing to see here..."

Wllm. Legrand
December 30, 2005, 09:23 PM
Ah -- I'll keep my eyes open for Bush Administration impalings.

That being my key point. Lots of "talk" out there. Most of it inaccurate.


As I wrote, you need to read more. Lots more.

LJWebster1
December 30, 2005, 09:38 PM
If you want to be technical and have you head up your behind, keep saying we are not at war. The following is good enough for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

ajax
December 30, 2005, 09:41 PM
I cant help myself any more I just have to throw two more cents into the pot. Wllm I believe you to be a conspircy theory kind of guy. You seem to believe yourself to be the most informed guy in this thread. You seem to think others should read more. Well maybe you should read less becuase the ???? your spoutin sounds like its straight out of a Tom Clancy novel. Know that I think about it the goverment probably did blow a hole in the levies in New Orleans and they took out building #7 and they new about the 9/11 attack and let it happen so we could have reason for invading Iraq and Iraq never had WMDs just another reason to go to war.Get a life!!!!!!!!!!!

yucaipa
December 30, 2005, 09:42 PM
That being my key point. Lots of "talk" out there. Most of it inaccurate.



Yes,about 5 pages of it so far.

The reason the President admits openly what he did is because he hasn't done anything illegal.

I know some of you think he can not wire tap without a warrant but, the facts are that several courts have said that can.

Wllm. Legrand
December 30, 2005, 09:45 PM
I cant help myself any more I just have to throw two more cents into the pot. Wllm I believe you to be a conspircy theory kind of guy. You seem to believe yourself to be the most informed guy in this thread. You seem to think others should read more. Well maybe you should read less becuase the ???? your spoutin sounds like its straight out of a Tom Clancy novel. Know that I think about it the goverment probably did blow a hole in the levies in New Orleans and they took out building #7 and they new about the 9/11 attack and let it happen so we could have reason for invading Iraq and Iraq never had WMDs just another reason to go to war.Get a life!!!!!!!!!!!

Well....I can't think a better representative for the People than yourself. A man with both feet on the ground and as inflexible to contrary opinion as he is unimaginative.

A good fellow, and typical, in this Age of the Common Man.

And by the way, Oswald did it...alone. You certainly believe that, don't you? (happy face)

It's not that conspiracies do not exist; it is a question of what theory are you to believe, this one over here, or that one over there?

A reasonable person (one who is not reluctant to address contradictions when reason exposes them) examines data, formulates a hypothesis that covers (all) of the known facts, and if possible, puts the theory to the test. In the fact of additional or contradictory data, the theory is modified to account for those facts.

It's a simple process but one that has become habitual for me, over time. As for the process of becoming better informed, that's pretty much what I do. I would try and free myself of conscious and unconscious prejudice, if I were you.

But I am not you, and for that I can be thankful.

ReadyontheRight
December 30, 2005, 09:56 PM
As I wrote, you need to read more. Lots more.

Well...I did do some more reading. And to my amazement, it says "Unconditional Guarantee: Reynolds guarantees complete satisfaction or your purchase price refunded." Right there on the box! You can look it up yourself!
























:evil:

Sorry...Back to the High Road.

Wllm. Legrand
December 30, 2005, 10:00 PM
Well...I did do some more reading. And to my amazement, it says "Unconditional Guarantee: Reynolds guarantees complete satisfaction or your purchase price refunded." Right there on the box! You can look it up yourself!
























:)

Sorry...Back to the High Road.
:cool: ;)

Derby FALs
December 30, 2005, 11:20 PM
Exactly who has been tortured?

Being forced to wear a dog collar by a woman isn't torture. And those who did those stipid things were punished.

It seems to me that government officials were standing up to ridiculous new laws about things that:

A. No one was doing.
B. Were already both illegal and against policy.

The new torture laws sound like ridiculous new laws like the AWB to me. Political grandstanding about nothing.
At least two prisoners died in Abu Grahib but the contractors were never charged. 80% of the prisoners are released because they haven't done anything.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 1, 2006, 11:58 AM
They pass along the info to the FBI minus any info on the US citizen. No name, phone number or any parts of the conversation spoken by the US citizen. They can hand over half the info they gathered and anything after the warrant was issued.

If this is true then it sounds like the FISA rules need to be changed to allow the proper flow of intel.

This is not correct. This is only true of U.S. citizens who are inadvertently part of collection (read the document I linked to earlier), For example, if you call Osama to ask him "Is your refrigerator running? Well you better go catch it!" that would be redacted.

If you call him to ask "Hey why is my bomb vest three sizes too small?" the info you listed above should not be redacted (or at least as of 1993 wasn't redacted and I doubt we have gone backwards that way).

Don Gwinn
January 1, 2006, 12:25 PM
I really think we can do better than vague conspiracy theories and personal attacks. Let's get back on the High Road. . . . now.

telomerase
January 1, 2006, 12:56 PM
Even if that is not the case, we're in deep, deep trouble when the best defense for our current president is that he's no worse than Clinton.

That is not a tenable defense. Bush has massively outspent Clinton in every area. The only Presidents who could match him for increasing government are LBJ and FDR.

Smuggs
January 1, 2006, 12:58 PM
While the courts may uphold the wiretaps a lot of this angst could have been avoided by two things.

1. making use of the FISA in getting warrants on intercepts that were of interest and dumping the rest.
2. GWB showing a bit of humility and not the usual arrogance that I have come to expect.

The CARNIVORE system has been in use since the Clinton administration. This distributed processing system actually scans internet, international phone lines as well as cell phones searching for key words in conversations and then using filters similar to the ones many use in spam monitoring software. The intention of this system is that once a signal passes a set number of tests then it is forwarded to analysts for further processing. While the system can only actually catch one out of 100 signals for even a brief look it is a useful tool. Like any other tool it is the person directing it that has the choice to use it wisely or not. I would not have a problem with the intercepts that have been going on if the FISA were informed of any that were to be followed up on and the rest were dumped. In conclusion the current wiretaps may or may not be legal (the courts will have to decide that not an internet forum) but the tools are available to the administration already and following the two steps above would have saved GWB a hell of a lot of grief.

kel
January 1, 2006, 01:12 PM
Newsflash........ 64% of Americans are stupid.
This can also be expressed as "approximately 50% of Americans are below average." Stupidity is a relative term. I'd like to think there is the same intelligence gap exists between myself and the average American as exists betweent the average American and a retarded person. If one were to measure by IQ this statement would hold true. To me the real question is "Is our educational system producing Americans qualified to understand and pass judgement on the issue?"

bogie
January 1, 2006, 01:31 PM
1. making use of the FISA in getting warrants on intercepts that were of interest and dumping the rest.
2. GWB showing a bit of humility and not the usual arrogance that I have come to expect.

1) More people involved means more leaks and means more likelihood of the enemy changing his tactics... Oh wait... that's academic now...

2) The Arab world understands arrogance and power, and perceives what our culture sees as "nice" humility as a weakness to be exploited. If Bush appears in public, he'd better walk and talk like he's got big brass ones, or else they'll think we've got Clinton and her husband again.

Which is more powerful? The .45ACP or the .38 Super?

Smuggs
January 1, 2006, 01:42 PM
If a federal judge on a national security court is a security threat then what the :cuss: is he doing there in the first place???

And no mater what "Arab World" thinks if GWB arrogance pisses off enuff US citizens then it won't matter who has the bigger set. If the current administration continues to use questionable tactics then it will be a big plus for who ever runs in opposition to the republican party will have a lot of angry voters to draw from. In what way will this help the long term goals of the administration????

bogie
January 1, 2006, 02:50 PM
I think that most of the people who GWB is irritating are democrats, or people who have forgotten little things like the Cole, WTC1, WTC2, etc...

It's easy to promote isolationism, until it turns around and bites you.

As for fed judges... The more people who are involved with something, the more likely it is to leak. The NSA leak _will_ cost American lives. Not "may," but "will." How do you feel about that?

Having the best-equipped signal intelligence unit in the country chase down the info is the way to do it... What would we be saying right now if something nasty had gone down, and it was leaked that we'd had the chance to use the NSA to chase down the perpetrators, but hadn't because their phones were within the US boundaries? People would be calling for bureaucratic heads on sticks.

Bureaucracy and the fine points of law are _nothing_ next to the harsh realities of large numbers of dead civilians. The Islamic nutjobs _will_ find another way to kill a bunch of us. Not "may." We just need to try to stop them until their own culture will disown them. Iraq will go a long way, as their standard of living increases...

Smuggs
January 1, 2006, 03:12 PM
Hold on. I am the one who actually made an attempt to explain the CARNIVOR system that is at the heart of our sigint network for terror. I have never said that is should be shut down. What I said was that intercepts can be made and then can be brought to the FISA after the fact in accordance to the laws that brought it into being. There have been plenty of means given to the intel community to go after terrorists just use the ones clearly defined and approved by congress and it would have stopped a lot of the bullsh*t that has gone on in the wake of this leak. All that I had stated was that if GWB had followed procedure outlined in his beloved "patriot act" then he could have reached the same goal with little or no delay, and a hell of a lot less controversy.

Now as you seem to think that I don't give a ???? that peoples lives are at risk because of the leak remember it came from sources inside the NSA so what the H*ll makes you think that bypassing the FISA is the way to stop leaks? I had not intended my original post to start this little flame war but to explain how the process could have been done with much less controversy as to if it is legal or not. However I WILL NOT be accused of not caring about the lives of Americans who may be affected by the leak. To act as if everyone who disagrees with you and chooses to express their feelings as being against America or not caring is the kind of arrogance I was speaking of in my first post.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 1, 2006, 03:30 PM
Having the best-equipped signal intelligence unit in the country chase down the info is the way to do it... What would we be saying right now if something nasty had gone down, and it was leaked that we'd had the chance to use the NSA to chase down the perpetrators, but hadn't because their phones were within the US boundaries? People would be calling for bureaucratic heads on sticks.

Bogie, I would ask you to take a look at the United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 that I posted earlier in this thread (and a previous thread) that details the restraints on the NSA as of 1993 and tell me what scenario it is that you envision where NSA would be hampered from pursuing terrorists under the 1993 rules?

yucaipa
January 1, 2006, 03:34 PM
While the courts may uphold the wiretaps a lot of this angst could have been avoided by two things.




The courts all ready have, in 2002, the FISA review court upheld the president's warrantless search powers, referencing a 1980 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That court held that "the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power," wrote the court.

Basically FISA is saying that Congress violated the "separation of powers" when it created FISA in the 1st place, and that the President does not need "ANY" courts OK to wiretap when he is doing so as "Commander and chief" under Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution.

"The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, which is the highest court that's looked at these questions, has said that "the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority."

The damage here is;

1 Congress sticking it nose where it doesn't belong.

2 The illegal leaking of the President's legal (as CIC) and classified activity

benEzra
January 1, 2006, 06:58 PM
Basically FISA is saying that Congress violated the "separation of powers" when it created FISA in the 1st place, and that the President does not need "ANY" courts OK to wiretap when he is doing so as "Commander and chief" under Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution.
To wiretap American citizens inside the United States, the executive branch needs a search warrant in accordance with standard 4th Amendment procedures. To say the executive branch can wiretap Americans inside the U.S. with no warrant necessary, as long as the President is wearing his CnC hat instead of his Chief LEO hat, makes the 4th Amendment null and void, IMHO. A President is always the CnC; allowing a CnC exemption to the Bill of Rights would therefore turn the BoR into the Bill of Suggestions as long as we have a sitting President.

Gunz
January 1, 2006, 07:14 PM
Man, is THAT why my phone has this funny crackling static-like sound from time to time?

I also thought all those calls with special offers were just telemarketers......

LOL

Hey, I bet there are some stories they cannot tell about the people they pulled into Guantanamo due to warrantless-wiretaps.

Glad I am not a person of interest. Being an American who is a regular Joe really, I have nothing to hide.

Smuggs
January 1, 2006, 07:18 PM
"The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, which is the highest court that's looked at these questions, has said that "the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority."

underline mine

So it is ok to violate my rights because I am talking to someone from another country???? Hmm and I thought I was at the high road :rolleyes:

yucaipa
January 1, 2006, 07:36 PM
To wiretap American citizens inside the United States, the executive branch needs a search warrant in accordance with standard 4th Amendment procedures.

No,he doesn't

That is exactly what the court has said.

yucaipa
January 1, 2006, 07:38 PM
underline mine

So it is ok to violate my rights because I am talking to someone from another country

Yes,

That's exactly what the court has said.

Smuggs
January 1, 2006, 08:02 PM
Nevermind

Phyphor
January 1, 2006, 10:22 PM
I guess the right to being considered innocent until proven guilty in a court by your peers isn't included.

Bush hatred is so transparent.

Yes, because it's obvious that Bush is all about defending each and every single right we have, eh?

:barf:

Ledhead686
January 2, 2006, 12:50 AM
Great way to contribute right back...

how about this... At least 64% of the people are sheeple, and will give up any civil liberties they have for the illusion of security.

You nailed it. Appears as though someone on this board needs to look into what the Founding Fathers had to say on matters such as freedom vs. security. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et al, must be rolling in their graves at this point.

bogie
January 2, 2006, 01:21 AM
Okay. So vote for Anyone But Bush (or another republican...).

At least Bush listens... I sorta remember another politician who had folks kicking in doors...

Bartholomew Roberts
January 2, 2006, 03:05 AM
"The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, which is the highest court that's looked at these questions, has said that "the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority."

The damage here is;

1 Congress sticking it nose where it doesn't belong.

2 The illegal leaking of the President's legal (as CIC) and classified activity

The damage here is expanding the definition of "foreign intelligence" (which is what the decision you cite concerns) to be so broad as to cover a large percentage of American citizens who are entitled to their Fourth amendment rights.

Over the years, FISA has denied five requests and yet this administration couldn't be bothered to pursue even an after the fact warrant after surveillance had already been started? Not only that but I'm pretty shocked at the number of people who don't seem to be concerned that even a rubber stamp like FISA was apparently something that had to be avoided in these cases.

Don't any of you defending this act have even the slightest trepidation about where this may lead? Aren't you the least bit curious WHY the Bush Administration felt no need to ask FISA for a warrant that they almost never deny?

yucaipa
January 2, 2006, 10:50 AM
Don't any of you defending this act have even the slightest trepidation about where this may lead?






I'm not defending the act, personally I think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are being stepped over here. I believe the President should be able to whatever needs to, to protect and fight the BG's. I don't see some kind of oversight-check & balance as a danger to our Constitutional system,I see what we have now as more of a threat.

Its just bugs me when people say Bush's "illegal wiretaps" ,no there not,because the court as said so.....even if I disagree.

or Bush "can't do that with out a warrant" yes he can, the court has said he can....even if I disagree.

The scariest part is the Attorney General has said that he "believes" that the Supreme Court will "uphold" the lower court ruling. With Roberts already on board and Alito also on board by the time the case is heard, I'm afraid he's probably right.:mad:

bogie
January 2, 2006, 12:11 PM
I'm still having a hard time understanding this whole thing...

1) Akbar gets busted before he can go get his virgins...

2) His cell phone gets fed into the system.

3) He's been calling Abduhl in New York.

4) Abduhl gets monitored, so he can't go get his virgins.

What's the problem?

Just for a moment, take all the law books, etc., and toss 'em out the window. Er... we may need a bigger window... Let's just use common sense. Suicide bomber calls fellow in New York - what do you do? What do you do?

Bartholomew Roberts
January 2, 2006, 12:48 PM
Just for a moment, take all the law books, etc., and toss 'em out the window. Er... we may need a bigger window... Let's just use common sense. Suicide bomber calls fellow in New York - what do you do? What do you do?

As I noted earlier, there were procedures already in place as far back as 1993 that allowed the type of monitoring you hypothesized legally.

Since the administration hasn't volunteered what they are doing, all we can do is speculate as to what they may be doing that isn't covered by earlier procedures and would not be granted a warrant by FISA that allows them to monitor up to 500 calls at any given time.

My guess would be they are casting their net wide by saying that since any international call could conceivably be related to foreign intelligence they will just monitor all of them and follow up the ones that look interesting. This is the type of task that NSA is well-suited for - monitoring vast anounts of communications and sifting out the wheat from the chaff.

GoRon
January 4, 2006, 05:28 PM
I am not arguing that the govnmt should be able to spy on it's citizens without a court order. What has occured appears to be intercepts that have a clear point A to point B connection to AQ types. Not fishing expeditions.
From an article I just read

LINK (http://www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=180975&loc=/opinion/columns/terencejeffrey/2006/01/04/180975.html)

Presumably, even Sen. Boxer would agree that when U.S. troops entered a cave in Afghanistan believed to be occupied by al Qaeda, they didn't need a warrant.

Presumably, she would also agree that when one terrorist in Afghanistan phoned another, our military did not need a court order to intercept the call.

I even suspect she might agree that the National Security Agency could intercept a communication resembling the hypothetical conversation described at the beginning of this column.

But what if our hypothetical caller in Islamabad makes his way to the U.S., lands at Dulles Airport in suburban Virginia, rents a car and, while heading down the road toward the U.S. Capitol, pulls out a new cell phone and calls his old friend back in Pakistan?

"I'm here," he says.

What Sen. Boxer is suggesting is that President Bush may have committed an impeachable offense if he authorized the NSA to intercept communications similar to this one unless he had permission from a judge. She must have forgotten we are in a war she voted for.

We don't know the exact procedures of the NSA surveillance program. But thanks to a Dec. 19 press briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Gen. Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence, we do know its key points. First, Gonzales said, "we have to have a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda."

Secondly, only international communications are intercepted. "I can assure you," said Gen. Hayden, "by the physics of the intercept, by how we actually conduct our activities, that one end of these communications are always outside the United States of America."

Most importantly, we know the intercepts have allowed our government to gather wartime intelligence it could not have gathered if a court order were required. When specifically asked if that were the case, Gen. Hayden said: "I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available."

Camp David
January 4, 2006, 05:35 PM
Yes, because it's obvious that Bush is all about defending each and every single...

Your sentence was fine until you said "rights"... Corrected sentence would be as follows: It's obvious that Bush is all about defending each and every single American and their security against terrorism.

As as one of those Americans being defended, I support the President. Nobody else in the Democrat party is doing anything at all to secure my safety; indeed, most are jeopardizing it!

Ermac
January 4, 2006, 06:01 PM
You nailed it. Appears as though someone on this board needs to look into what the Founding Fathers had to say on matters such as freedom vs. security. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et al, must be rolling in their graves at this point.

Please take your rhetoric and through it out the door :barf:

Art Eatman
January 4, 2006, 06:21 PM
Naw, it's time this thread got thrown out the door.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "64% of Americans Support NSA Intercepts" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!