Tomcat1066
Member
Not requiring a warrant CAN impact me, and that's enough of a reason to stand against it. Not saying don't do it, just get a warrant.
Tom
Tom
Bush authorized NSA to spy on Americans
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
- Status
xd9fan
Member
nice dodge on my questions to you Camp david
Tomcat1066
Member
Nothing in the Fourth Amendment says it's ok for the government to tap your phone if they are doing it from outside US borders. As such, if a US agency wants intelligence on me, they should be forced to get a warrant. After that, so be it. I won't say a thing against it.
Tom
Tom
Camp David
member
Biker said:
Love the way the leftist liberals try to stay on topic!
They derail discussion when the facts are made plain to them!~
Just an old habit of mine to try to inject some humor into a conversation that could go south. No offense intended.Puppy said:
On topic though, it was my understanding that some of these wiretaps were conducted in the US on American citizens.
Biker
Tomcat1066
Member
When investigating American citizens, you get a Federal Court to issue the warrant. It's been held mulitple times that a non-citizen does NOT have this right. I apologize if I wasn't clearer on that position.
Tom
Tom
I'm a 'leftist liberal'? Pucker 'em up and chafe 'em, man.Camp David said:Love the way the leftist liberals try to stay on topic!
They derail discussion when the facts are made plain to them!~
And btw, you haven't presented a single fact, just a bunch of kool-aid induced dogma. If you're an American, I'm ashamed to call you a countryman.
Anyway, this one is going nowhere quick.
Biker
dasmi
Member
Interesting how anyone who doesn't agree with you is a leftist/liberal.
I am a conversative, and pretty right wing. And I agree with just about nothing you say.
I am a conversative, and pretty right wing. And I agree with just about nothing you say.
If they are using the FISA court, it should. This is a top-secret, drop dead before reading court that deals with this stuff, not the run-o-the mill jurists.
Doing some more research, it appears that the time limit is 72 hours -- so the NSA/FBI/whoever can implement the tap, then they have 72 hours to go get it approved by the court. I guess that if the court dis-approves, they would have to terminate the tap, but that is just my assumption at this time.
And, to remind everyone, the crux of the matter is that the program Bush approved involves communications that either originate or terminate in the USA and/or involves US citizens located in the USA. I don't think that anyone is having a problem with listening in to Osama in Pakistan talking to Sikari in Iraq -- nor do I think that is illegal in any way or against the constitution.
The latest spin on this being introduced by Bush supporters is the following (heard it on the radio during the lunch hour, so I will try to relate it correctly - maybe someone can come up with a link): 1) We are in a state of war. 2) The congress authorized Bush to take all means to defend us. 3) The wire-taps are of a military nature, and are thus under the grant of authority from the congress, making them a legal activity under the President's war powers.
Trouble with this is that first, a federal circuit court ruled a while ago that the congressional resolution dealt with going to Iraq only and did not confer on Bush any additional powers or rights. Second, if we follow that logic, a simple majority vote in congress could abrogate any other law, including all of the constitution. I don't think we want to go down that road.
Tomcat,
If an American citizen, here in the United States picks up the telephone and dials an international number that belongs to (for example lets say an Iranian intelligence agency) that the NSA is monitoring the NSA doesnt immediately stop monitoring that line, fill out a request for a warrant, fax it to a judge and wait for a warrant to be fax'd back giving them permission to start listening to that line again.
But that sounds like that is exactly what some of my fellow countrymen want to have happen ...
If an American citizen, here in the United States picks up the telephone and dials an international number that belongs to (for example lets say an Iranian intelligence agency) that the NSA is monitoring the NSA doesnt immediately stop monitoring that line, fill out a request for a warrant, fax it to a judge and wait for a warrant to be fax'd back giving them permission to start listening to that line again.
But that sounds like that is exactly what some of my fellow countrymen want to have happen ...
bogie
Member
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."
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..."
Spooky Looking Civilian: "No, that would be a violation, and we shouldn't do it."
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..."
Camp David
member
As opposed to the Chicken Little "sky is falling" alarmists? Please...Biker said:
The only fact that need be surfaced is the success of the Patriot Act policy and the prevention of further domestic terrorism since 09/11/01! Got anyting to counter that success? More of Democrat alarmism I suppose! Jack Murtha "cut & run" cowardice?
dasmi
Member
It is not cowardice to despise the raping of our privacy, freedom, and rights by our Government. I am not a Democrat, I am not a Republican, and Jack Murtha is a tool. You digust me.
Just out of curiosity...
Devils Advocate:
You receive intelligence that another large scale terrorist attack is about to occur. The only way to obtain information is through a wire-tap. There is no time to get a warrant. The tap must occur in the U.S. as the phone conversation is between 2 or 3 terror-cells embedded in the U.S. All involved are U.S. citizens.
What do you do?
A. Tap the wire, obtain the intelligence needed to hopefully negate the attack? Trample all over the 4th Amendment and make the rest of the Constitution useless. The 2nd Amendment crumbles and the U.S. is thrust into civil unrest. A revolution is now eminent.
B. Do not tap the wire as it's in violation of the 4th Amendment. Let thousands die. Cover up the fact that you could have thwarted the attack so that the President cannot be blamed for a failure to act upon appropriate intelligence. Then blame the system.
tick... tock... tick... tock
Devils Advocate:
You receive intelligence that another large scale terrorist attack is about to occur. The only way to obtain information is through a wire-tap. There is no time to get a warrant. The tap must occur in the U.S. as the phone conversation is between 2 or 3 terror-cells embedded in the U.S. All involved are U.S. citizens.
What do you do?
A. Tap the wire, obtain the intelligence needed to hopefully negate the attack? Trample all over the 4th Amendment and make the rest of the Constitution useless. The 2nd Amendment crumbles and the U.S. is thrust into civil unrest. A revolution is now eminent.
B. Do not tap the wire as it's in violation of the 4th Amendment. Let thousands die. Cover up the fact that you could have thwarted the attack so that the President cannot be blamed for a failure to act upon appropriate intelligence. Then blame the system.
tick... tock... tick... tock
jefmad
Member
No, if that happens the tap can continue BUT they should go to the FISA court within 72 hours to get the warrant.
Poor Knight
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 19
NSA CAN"T listen to US calls without this program - even terrorist calls
If NSA is tracking Zarkawi's calls, and he calls a guy in Boston, NSA COULD NOT LISTEN before this program was started. Now, they can - and a call-by-call basis, through this special program WHICH REQUIREs PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL - meaning GEORGE and NOBODY ELSE, renewed and reviewed EVERY MONTH. This program has allowed us to avert several attacks. Congressional leaders were read into it a long time ago. NYT just wants to make it easier for the terorists.
If NSA is tracking Zarkawi's calls, and he calls a guy in Boston, NSA COULD NOT LISTEN before this program was started. Now, they can - and a call-by-call basis, through this special program WHICH REQUIREs PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL - meaning GEORGE and NOBODY ELSE, renewed and reviewed EVERY MONTH. This program has allowed us to avert several attacks. Congressional leaders were read into it a long time ago. NYT just wants to make it easier for the terorists.
dasmi
Member
Please support this statement with something other than the words of President Bush.
odysseus
Member
This example has some flaws. For example we all know that "intelligence" often can be anything but, and that operative word on "terror-cells" should be "suspected terror-cells" since if they had already proven to be, we wouldn't need to worry about all these warrant issues. I think a lot of people these days are forgetting to understand "suspected" and "innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty" these days; sad to say.
Chiming in on the big picture: Simply stated, it should not be a problem for Gov. agents to seek a warrant for review of anything to do with a US citizen at home in the US. As stated here - the issue is about getting taps on phones of US citizens here IN the US. I am personally not convinced that bypassing this is so necessary. Getting a judge to review and sign off is easy for these people. What's this really about?
In fact it is of a high priority to protect and honor said Constitutional Rights, as many many also agree. What are we fighting for anyway? Must not be about Inalienable Rights then?
Oh.. I guess maybe I am not a neo-con, just one of those old 'time idealist believers in the Constitution that supposedly our government officials swear to uphold.
Camp David
member
dasmi said:
Why? You're using the words and ideas of a handful of liberal leftist media reporters... on balance to that I'll take the words of our brave president anyday!
He has a plan for fighting terror... The New York Times doesn't care about threats to national security... helll if there was another terrorist attack they would be delighted! It's about time that folks understood that the leftist media support the terrorists!
The media don't serve the nation but the almighty dollar and profit. The president reports to the American people. I'll take the word of the president over the leftist media any day!
- Status