64% of Americans Support NSA Intercepts

[dasmi]

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]

this means that...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Newsflash........ 64% of Americans are stupid.

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

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.

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

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.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

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.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

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 ...?

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.

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

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]

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.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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."

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?