64% of Americans Support NSA Intercepts

[Smuggs]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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

 

[yucaipa]

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]

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]

Nevermind

 

[Phyphor]

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?

 

[Ledhead686]

Can you say, "Baaaahhh?"

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]

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]

"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]

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.

 

[bogie]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

 

[Art Eatman]

Naw, it's time this thread got thrown out the door.

Art