64% of Americans Support NSA Intercepts

[dasmi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I wonder what percentage of Americans support reasonable regulations about firearms?

pax

 

[R.H. Lee]

I'm surprised it's that low. It means 36% of Americans are asleep.

 

[LawDog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Was war ever declared?

 

[LJWebster1]

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]

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?

 

[MechAg94]

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]

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]

Tough Calls

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]

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]

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. 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]

"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]

"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.