Bush authorized NSA to spy on Americans

[carlrodd]

I repeat:

maybe, MAYBE, the current administration has not infringed upon the liberties of "law-abiding" citizens, but who is to say what the next won't? just take a minute to think about the precedent that will be set if the public just lets go of this.

 

[Fidel Castro]

Just a subtle observation... You might make more of a persuasive case here if your handle wasn't of Cuba's communist Dictator!

NoNo! Mr. David!! I really Fidel Castro! Now, we can join countries! We will call
Federation of Amerikan Cuban In Socialist Masterdoms.

 

[Old Dog]

Seems to me this thread has thoroughly fallen down into the "us-against-them" mode: "You're wrong!" "No, YOU'RE wrong!"

Bartholomew Roberts keeps trying to inject reason into the thread while everyone else ignores it ...

To me, one of the things the whole issue boils down to is: do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to using the internet -- a public venue -- and the public telephone systems in international correspondence? The right to free correspondence (as Jefferson termed it) is still present ...

Still, most of us will rightly conclude that monitoring everyone's international e-mails and phone conversations IS a violation of our 4th Amendment rights. Ergo, the administration should abide by the strictest interpretation of the applicable laws; it's the right thing to do, and the increase in risk to the general populace would appear to be miniscule.

 

[Ezekiel]

do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to using the internet -- a public venue -- and the public telephone systems in international correspondence?

I think the entire mechanism involves "the border". In theory, cannot we all be intrusively searched -- physically -- when crossing?

If my body and person is not sacred due to the involvement of multiple governments, how can bytes be? When cavity searches are outlawed at the border, so shall be eavesdropping.

 

[bogie]

Just a little info on FISA...

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/york/york200512191334.asp

 

[bogie]

And don't forget... I'll wager that the typical chain of events involved is similar to the below...

Soldiers capture terrorist in Iraq.

His cell phone gets fed into the system.

They also feed the numbers who call/called it, and the numbers it was used to call.

Callers to those numbers are also traced. A tree/web is forming.

Most calls are "local," but it turns out that three branches up the tree, a phone was also used to call New York...

...and that phone has been calling other numbers in Iraq and Pakistan...

...etc., etc...

 

[odysseus]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
The FISA court is not liberal. The FISA court is VERY state friendly. So it concerns me a great deal when President Bush refuses to ask for a slam dunk easy request that would have left absolutely no doubt about whether what he was doing is legal and likely would have been granted. It makes me wonder very much why he chose to pursue a legal course of action that was a very big grey area at best.

...and that my friends, is the huge issue. This is the primary issue. A whole system is in place to authorize secret surveillance of US citizens, and yet still Bush decided to bypass this. Why? Why also did he try to keep this authorization secret? It's not like those who really are terrorists care either way - wouldn't they assume that they could be watched anyway?

What is it that was going on that the current Administration felt it had to do WITHOUT seeking authorization from a secret, very state-friendly court? I doubt anyone will really speak of it. Essentially this is why this issue crosses political parties. On the radio, I listened to several Senators pretty pissed off, especially since ALREADY the administration holds secret meetings with them to update the Senate on what they are doing, and guess what - no one told them of this authorization. How ever you want to look at the WOT, the USA still has laws and procedures. More information needs to come to light on the legal aspects of this. This one is likely headed for the Supreme Court, and guess what - perhaps if the President wins, we now have court precident of even larger executive powers.... Personally, I happen to like checks and balance. That would be funny if that made me a "liberal".

Bad, bad business in my opinion.

 

[Igloodude]

...and that my friends, is the huge issue. This is the primary issue. A whole system is in place to authorize secret surveillance of US citizens, and yet still Bush decided to bypass this. Why? Why also did he try to keep this authorization secret? It's not like those who really are terrorists care either way - wouldn't they assume that they could be watched anyway?

What is it that was going on that the current Administration felt it had to do WITHOUT seeking authorization from a secret, very state-friendly court? I doubt anyone will really speak of it. Essentially this is why this issue crosses political parties. On the radio, I listened to several Senators pretty pissed off, especially since ALREADY the administration holds secret meetings with them to update the Senate on what they are doing, and guess what - no one told them of this authorization.

Bad, bad business in my opinion.

Actually several senators did get informed about this. Reid and Rockefeller, for two that I can think of.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Soldier (in a commo facility just outside Baghdad): "Sir, it looks like Abduhl's phone was used to call several numbers in Indianapolis. Should we forward that on for immediate surveillance?"

Spooky Looking Civilian: "No, that would be a violation, and we shouldn't do it."

No, that wouldn't be a "violation" to forward it to the US, have it reviewed
by the secret court we've been using for decades, and then tapping the #
in Indianapolis.

CNN Anchorperson (the next day): "It's reported that casualty rates are in the hundreds, but we don't know for sure, since some of the radiation doses may take days or even years to kill their victims. In other news, Congress is calling for the removal of President Bush, after word was leaked that our forces in Baghdad had access to cell phone records that linked to the bomber..."

What "radiation" are you talking about? Our depleted uranium?

 

[odysseus]

Actually several senators did get informed about this. Reid and Rockefeller, for two that I can think of.

Seems hard to get anything straight on this out of DC right now. Time will tell...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Just a little info on FISA...

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/york/york200512191334.asp

Bogie, let me point out a few reasons why I am extremely skeptical of the argument advanced at that link.

First, the Patriot Act allows surveillance to go forward before consulting FISA. So there is no gain in timeliness by skipping that step.

Second, the complaints concerning the FISA process focused not on the court; but on the strict standards used by the Attorney General's OIPR office in reviewing applications before they were sent to the court. The link I referenced earlier from FAS goes into that in some detail.

Third, the process was streamlined several times to make it increasingly easier to obtain FISA warrants.

Finally, the new process requires the input of the Attorney General at DoJ; but it was his office that was the source of most of the complaints about bottleneck of FISA requests. Everybody agrees FISA handled requests quickly if they ever reached the court. So how does a process that cuts out the court add anything?

 

[Thin Black Line]

All in favor say AYE?

So all of you who are defending the no-court-order-needed-and-the
executive-office-can-do-what-it-likes-in-the-interest-of-our-collective
-security-and-bend-the-4th-amendment-as-it-sees-fit will have absolutely
NO problem with the FBI once again keeping records of gun purchases
through the NICS?

"Oh wait, no, that's compleeeeetely different....."

 

[bogie]

I'm afraid I do not understand... the process is flawed, slow and cumbersome, but we should use it?

Do we need one of Abduhl's cousins to pop a few pounds of semtex under a truckload of radioactive crap before we pay attention again?

 

[carlrodd]

So all of you who are defending the no-court-order-needed-and-the
executive-office-can-do-what-it-likes-in-the-interest-of-our-collective
-security-and-bend-the-4th-amendment-as-it-sees-fit will have absolutely
NO problem with the FBI once again keeping records of gun purchases
through the NICS?

"Oh wait, no, that's compleeeeetely different....."

aye!.....i mean nay

 

[Camp David]

Do we need one of Abduhl's cousins to pop a few pounds of semtex under a truckload of radioactive crap before we pay attention again?

That is precisely what will happen if the Democrats and Liberals have their way... handicapping the gov't's fight against terror invites further domestic terrorists to practice their horror. The chicken littles run rampant screaming end-of-world scenarios of rights revocation and denials of liberties while the terrorists egg them on... sad.

 

[carlrodd]

I'm afraid I do not understand... the process is flawed, slow and cumbersome, but we should use it?

Do we need one of Abduhl's cousins to pop a few pounds of semtex under a truckload of radioactive crap before we pay attention again?

it's not that the process is slow and cumbersome, it's that turning our backs on the fact that the president may have disregarded the law is a disasterous precedent to set....a sleepy, lazy, irresponsible public. the president is a servant to the people. every man that takes that office should be VERY respectful of the will of the people, and we are the ones who determine his impression of just how strong that will is.

 

[Igloodude]

... there's no way that the President would want to use dirty tricks or enemies lists or FBI records to investigate and subvert political opponents ...

Yeah... I remember now.... something about raw FBI files in the KLINTON "administration"... hmmm...

Yes, that's one of the examples I had in mind. One should also take a look at LBJ and Nixon administrations, and googling for "Pentagon Papers" would not be a waste of time.

 

[odysseus]

The chicken littles run rampant screaming end-of-world scenarios of rights revocation and denials of liberties while the terrorists egg them on... sad.

Man, that's a lot of grandiloquent speech. So who are the "chicken littles" here on this thread? I am getting tired of the run-down from some here, that people who are concerned that Amendments to our Constitution might have been violated or bent beyond necessary reason, are somehow not up to War on Terror. Mind you that is silly on your part to keep pushing.

What the ^&*% do you think we have an armed services for? What defines your right to free speech and to bear arms? sheeesh... plain blind.

Camp David, you sound like Dick Cheney at a GOP dinner. Sales, sales, sales...

 

[Fidel Castro]

Seems to me this thread has thoroughly fallen down into the "us-against-them" mode: "You're wrong!" "No, YOU'RE wrong!"

Still, most of us will rightly conclude that monitoring everyone's international e-mails and phone conversations IS a violation of our 4th Amendment rights. Ergo, the administration should abide by the strictest interpretation of the applicable laws; it's the right thing to do, and the increase in risk to the general populace would appear to be miniscule.

Sorry, of course you are right Old Dog. But it was alot of fun anyway and there was alot of lurkers becoming new members. Please accept my apology if I offended anyone. I do believe President Bush really believes he is doing the right thing. He has the intel. that we don't but I still don't agree with him. Our country was built on the principles of truth, honesty, justice and doing the right thing for all men/women. Today lying, threats, coersion is OK and fully accceptable by LE to collect evidence. Ex post facto punishment-lautenburg act. LE reverse stings. Roving wiretaps OK. No knock searches OK, even though they could detain the subjects off the property then search. 'Sneak and peak' is OK. We treat the rest of the world's population even worse. Is it no wonder there is so much hate? Torture is acceptable. Indefinite detention without charge is OK. I know these are not nice people and they would stab your back. Just don't turn your back.

What happened to the good ol' U. S. of A. being the good guys? And don't say it's because of 9/11 because it's been going on since the time of the Vietnam War. When the government relies on deception it loses all credibility. When you lose credibility you lose everything.

My bottom line, I will always remember a famous quote concerning OUR Constitution and Bill of Rights.

"When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet."
-- Lyle Myhur

We do own guns and that's why WE must preserve the Constitution and the BOR's as written, not a 21st century interpretation.

 

[xd9fan]

THANK YOU Thin Black Line!!!

What a joke

Neocons nor any liberal (at the other pro-govt party for that matter) cant be trusted. The "trust us we know best how to keep you safe" line is ready and waiting for abuse by the Govt.

If anybody in this thread thinks letting the 4thA slide then how are you going to protect your guns from the Govt when some King starts bending the 2ndA?????? (dead by a thousand cuts)

Because it seems to me the GOP is hooked on the buzy words of "its for your security" and if it does not effect you then damn it sheeple look away and move along!!!!

these two parties are moving right into a socialistic state one out of social programs the other from a over bearing militery approach.

All you guys that "Call" yourselves Conservative.....please tell me how this is limited Govt??????

 

[Camp David]

What happened to the good ol' U. S. of A. being the good guys?

The rest of world we helped became selfish pigs! Uncle Sam is no longer going to be the bagman for the world's problems... you need help? Ask France! No way USA should have to serve as wet nurse to the rest of the sniveling banana republics that couldn't run a Kool Aide Stand much less a nation.... let 'em die! You have disaster and need aid? Buy a hoover and vacuum bags cause Uncle Sam ain't coming! You desperately want USA's assistance? Pay back your old debts!

Sorry... new policy in place!

 

[The Drew]

That is precisely what will happen if the Democrats and Liberals have their way... handicapping the gov't's fight against terror invites further domestic terrorists to practice their horror. The chicken littles run rampant screaming end-of-world scenarios of rights revocation and denials of liberties while the terrorists egg them on... sad.

Hmmm.... Which to me is a more imminent threat... islamofascist terrorists who may attack us again in a high profile but relatively small attack. OR Dictatorial police state that turns us all into thought criminals because we don't love Big Brother George enough....

So if the fascists, er, I mean Bushies have their way, we'll all live in a totalitarian society where everyone is free to choose what kind of TP they wipe their ass with...

 

[Ezekiel]

islamofascist terrorists who may attack us again in a high profile but relatively small attack. OR Dictatorial police state that turns us all into thought criminals because we don't love Big Brother George enough....

In general, "I agree." But that metaphor is way out of proportion. Besides, the ongoing creation of an Orwellian government requires both a willing population and a brilliant long-term strategist: I only see one.

 

[The Drew]

In general, "I agree." But that metaphor is way out of proportion. Besides, the ongoing creation of an Orwellian government requires both a willing population and a brilliant long-term strategist: I only see one.

The willing populace... The idea is that "the people" never see the strategist...

We'll find out in 2008.

 

[Camp David]

Which to me is a more imminent threat... islamofascist terrorists who may attack us again in a high profile but relatively small attack. OR Dictatorial police state that turns us all into thought criminals because we don't love Big Brother George enough.......

So... another Ground Zero in New York and at the Pentagon with their attendant fatalities is more preferable to you than... say... imagined civil liberty infringements?

Wow!