Bush renames spying

[CAnnoneer]

In this instance, however, I see a need to extend the "trust" the Executive Office occupant deserves for two reasons

In 1934, the German people through their elected representatives decided to trust their executive branch and give Herr Hitler the Empowerment Act...

Since President Bush has been successful to date of preventing all domestic terrorism since 09.11.01 I trust him to contunue his homeland security.

Please explain which measure taken by GWB and homeland security has resulted in preventing domestic terrorism. Then explain how our non-existent border security figures into the big plan of homeland security.

Oh, by the way, you owe me $ 1,000,000 for the fact that I have prevented asteroid showers from destroying your house...

 

[Camp David]

So you're comfortable with giving the government free reign in determining who is and isn't a potential terrorist with no oversight? Checks and balances, so to speak?

You do this every day, Biker, with LEOs in your backyard! Why do you object to the Chief Executive doing it with terrorists?

Each day law enforcement officers throughout this nation sit and watch traffic; many of them, on speed patrols, enter driver's state license plate information, either on cars they stop or others that pass by, in order to obtain detail on drivers. None of this requires them to "wake a judge". From personal experience I can tell you that not all of them follow the letter of the law in such surveillance... some go far beyond it. All happening right in your back yard! Yet, when the president, during war, utilizes and authorizes the exact same surveillance technique, on our enemies, you express indignation that "he must be doing something wrong"!

Just a heads up on wiretapping done by NSA: It's only being done on calls originating internationally... I don't suppose that calms your indignation but it should!

 

[CAnnoneer]

From personal experience I can tell you that not all of them follow the letter of the law in such surveillance... some go far beyond it.

If they overstepped, write a complaint and get them suspended or fired.

Just because A breaks one law does not justify or excuse B breaking another law.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

During WWII this sort of signals intelligence was practiced every day and led to the breaking of the Germany's Enigma-encrypted communications code.

Non of this interception involved U.S. citizend in the U.S. homeland, so it isn't an exact comparison. Also, I have yet to see a formal declaration of war by congress, so I can't accept the "wartime powers" argument.

Cumbersome or not, the system of checks and balances exists for a reason and needs to be followed by all our leaders, even when they are inconvenienced. I want the Bush administration to do everything possible to capture terrorists, but I want them to do so within the boundaries set by our Constitution, even when those boundaries prove cumbersome.

And I agree that far too many police officers overstep their authority every single day. It is a microcosmic reflection of the corruption that has infected the macrocosm of our federal government. In neither case is this acceptable.

 

[Biker]

Dunno LB, I guess that many feel that if 'Johhny did it first', it's okay.
Makes no sense to me.
Biker

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So you're comfortable with giving the government free reign in determining who is and isn't a potential terrorist with no oversight? Checks and balances, so to speak?
Biker

I don't think the President's constitutional obligation to defend the country should be checked or balanced.

(Some might even argue that the very existence of a FISA court is unconstitutional, as it usurps the executive's authorities as commander in chief and arbitor foreign policy and international affairs. The constitution never delegated any authority to the judiciary to decide matters of war and foreign policy, and yet the FISA court claims exactly that authority for itself. But that's not the question you asked.)

The point you raise is a tough one. If terrorists are to be surveilled (and attacked, imprisoned, etc) somebody somewhere has to identify who the terrorists are. Who do we want to hold that responsibility?

I gather from your remarks you believe it should be a judge. Someone who is unelected and serves a life term, unaccountable to the citizenry. A natural choice, I suppose, given that judges are responsibile for deciding important civil matters. But international terrorism isn't a civil matter, is it?

I believe the constitution names the executive branch as the one to hold this responsibility. International terrorism (Al Qeada, Hezbollah, and the like - as opposed to domestic terror groups) fall squarely under the catagory of national defense and/or foreign policy. The President is expressly tasked with handling these areas. The judiciary is not empowered in this area.

And as for checks and balances, what stands to check/balance the actions of the men sitting on the FISA court? The man in the white house is accountable to the electorate. The men on the FISA court are (to my knowledge) completely untouchable.

 

[CAnnoneer]

During WWII this sort of signals intelligence was practiced every day and led to the breaking of the Germany's Enigma-encrypted communications code.

That was the Polish government spying on the German government by intercepting radio traffic and decoding it using a commercially available German machine that the German military adopted and classified. Later, the military added more discs, increasing the difficulty, but the Polish had an early start and kept up, eventually transferring the tech to the British and thus founding the Ultra source at Blechley.

Ultimately, this is one government spying on another. How is this example relevant to a (supposedly) (free democratic) government spying on its own subjects illegally?

 

[Biker]

I don't think the President's constitutional obligation to defend the country should be checked or balanced.

Some might even argue that the very existence of a FISA court is unconstitutional, as it usurps the executive's authorities as commander in chief and foreign policy or international relations. The constitution never delegated any authority to the judiciary to decide matters of war and foreign policy, yet that's exactly what the FISA court does.

Anyway, the point you raise is a tough one. If terrorists are to be surveilled (and attacked, imprisoned, etc) somebody somewhere has to identify who the terrorists are. Who should hold that responsibility?

I gather from your remarks that you believe that it should be a judge. Someone who is unelected and serves a life term, unaccountable to the citizenry. A natural choice, I suppose, given that judges are responsibile for deciding important civil matters. But international terrorism isn't a civil matter, is it?

I argue that the constitution names the executive branch as the one that holds this responsibility. International terrorism (Al Qeada, Hezbollah, and the like - as opposed to domestic terror groups) fall squarely under the catagory of national defense and/or foreign policy. The President is expressly tasked with handling these matters, not some judge somehwere.

And as for checks and balances, what stands to check/balance the actions of the men sitting on the FISA court? The man in the white house is accountable to the electorate. The men on the FISA court are (to my knowledge) completely untouchable.

So, you don't mind giving the POTUS dictatorial powers in other words? As least as his power pertains to terrorism, even if he is the definer of terrorism and terrorists?
Biker

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Dunno LB, I guess that many feel that if 'Johhny did it first', it's okay.
Makes no sense to me.
Biker

Cops' (or presidents') actions which obviously overstep their bounds are wrong. But if their actions fall into a gray area in between what is obviously acceptable and what is obviously inappriprate, then things are a little bit different. There are plenty of issues that simply cannot be simplified into a discrete 'yes' or 'no' asnwer.

What we have to do is analyze the law, form opinions and arguements in favor of one alternative or another, support positions one way or another with logical justifications. In essence, the question is debated.

It's not about "Johnny did it first, so w/we can too". It's about sampling the range of opinions and viewpoints formed by the body of informed proponents, and trying to decide which proponents are right and wich are wrong. If the preponderance of informed opinions hold that something is legal, then it probably is.

All of the Presidents that have held office since these sorts of NSA interceptions became technologically possible have agreed that the President has the authority to use them (without needing FISA court approval). The arguement is NOT: Clinton did it first, so Bush can too.

The arguement is: Carter and Reagan and Bush and Clinton and Bush II, as well as all of their legal scholars and experts, as well as most of the media (until recently), as well as the bulk of everyone else who weighed in the issue, have all beleived that these actions are legal.

Maybe, just maybe, they all got it right.

 

[Camp David]

Non of this interception involved U.S. citizend in the U.S. homeland, so it isn't an exact comparison...

Check out this document:
Counterintelligence In World War II
National Counterintelligence Center
http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/ci2/2ch1_a.htm#intro1

The following paragraph and others might dissuade your assumptions=>
"In the midst of all this activity, the Army Security Agency, later renamed the National Security Agency (NSA), made a major breakthrough in decoding Soviet intelligence messages. This program became known as the VENONA project (see the separate chapter on VENONA in this volume). The VENONA decrypts and information supplied by two American operatives of Soviet intelligence, Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers, opened American political and intelligence eyes to the massive Soviet effort to infiltrate the US Government. This massive espionage effort and Soviet domination of several governments in Eastern Europe led to the Cold War."

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So, you don't mind giving the POTUS dictatorial powers in other words? As least as his power pertains to terrorism, even if he is the definer of terrorism and terrorists?
Biker

Oy! These are not dictatorial powers, and the President (both as an office and an individual, Bush in this case) is not a dictator.

The people chose a President and a body of Congressmen to represent them. When the elected Congress declares war on the terrorists responsible for the Sept 11 attacks, and when the elected President carries out that war, it is NOT a dictatorship.



Real life beckons. I'm outta here.

 

[thorn726]

well i guess we can stop complaining about how one gun law only leads to another.

agree that a .22 is an assault weapon.

there is One good reason why all of this should go before a judge.
DEFine terrorist. Show reasonable proof suspect is involved in something.

or shut up and realize every gun owner should be lumped together with every evil gunowner.

this spy nonsense can only lead to more and more calls being monitored for less and less reason.

too funny how the drones drone. so well programmed. "it is in your best interest!"

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

CD, I don't think we disagree to the point you might think. We just come to loggerheads over one point--you believe the president has war-time powers and I require a formal declaration of war from congress before I will accept that. Even then, I would be uncomfortable with unconstitutional behavior, as occurred during WWII, but I wouldn't argue that the president has committed a crime. In this case, in the absence of a formal declaration of war by congress, I believe a crime has been committed.

I don't believe there ever will be a war on terror because terror is an emotion that will always exist. As long as there are looney tunes in the world who are so filled with their own self-righteous correctness that they try to force their beliefs down the throats of others even if it means committing crimes, we will have terrorism. I believe we need to deal with that, but we need to deal with it for what it is--crime--rather than declaring some vague and ill-conceived war on an emotion. There is nothing you can say that will make me accept the president having war time powers other than showing me a formal declaration of war by congress.

 

[Biker]

Oy! These are not dictatorial powers, and the President (both as an office and an individual, Bush in this case) is not a dictator.

The people chose a President and a body of Congressmen to represent them. When the elected Congress declares war on the terrorists responsible for the Sept 11 attacks, and when the elected President carries out that war, it is NOT a dictatorship.



Real life beckons. I'm outta here.

I wasn't necessaily referring to Bush. If you trust Bush to make up the rules as he goes, will you trust the next POTUS who decides to take the same liberties with the BOR?
Biker

 

[Camp David]

CD, I don't think we disagree to the point you might think...

I follow your thinking.

I believe a crime has been committed....

Me too... and Al Qaeda committed it.

I don't believe there ever will be a war on terror because terror is an emotion that will always exist..

We all have emotions. Few of us act on them. Fewer still become fanatical terrorists that use terror to accomplish misunderstood religious dogma.

There is, in fact, a War on Terror. We are fighting it now. When we started this war the president told us it would be a new type of war, one which were not familiar with fighting. The war would be fought around the world. Even in our backyards.

The war is against terrorists; fanatical Muslim terrorists whose misundertood Koran readings lead them to kill civilians.

Denying the president the tools to fight the war handicaps our success. The liberties you insinuate you might loose or be compromised as a result of this War on Terror are not as valuable as the life you will lose if you refuse to accept the threat, which is very real.

We don't disagree as much as you imagine; I feel that you mis-prioritize the vital importance of life with lesser liberties that, indeed, have never been denied you.

 

[Manedwolf]

So Mr. Biker: If a call originates from a suspected terrorist in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq to party or parties domestically, you believe nothing should be done? Wow!

Not only do I support the President in regard to such “terrorist surveillance programs” I believe it would be gross incompetence if the government did not detect such calls and follow up on them! Such things led to 09/11/01.

And in the years that this has been going on, how many terrorist suspects have they caught, out of the thousands of Americans listened to?

Zeeeeeeeeeero.

Real effective, huh?

 

[Manedwolf]

The Attorney General spoke on this issue just yesterday and I urge you to read it...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...,1,6840973.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

"It is an early warning system with only one purpose: to detect and prevent the next attack on the United States," Gonzales said. "It is imperative for national security reasons that we can detect reliably, immediately and without delay whenever communications associated with Al Qaeda enter or leave the United States."

and

"Gonzales, drawing heavily on a 42-page Justice Department "white paper" issued last week, said the eavesdropping follows a long tradition of wartime surveillance and is conducted under the president's authority as commander in chief. Although FISA includes emergency provisions allowing short-term wiretapping without a warrant, Gonzales said the law would overly burden the government with paperwork and other requirements when it needs to respond quickly."

Can you write your own opinion on matters, or just, in general, quote regurgitated RoveCo spin?

 

[fourays2]

I'm not Camp David, but if you were asking me tha answer would be a wholehearted YES.

Spying on the enemy in time of war (even when the enemy is in contact with Americans) is something the President is OBLIGATED to do. Not doing so would be an act of negligence, a violation of his (or her) oath of office.

I would be uncomfortable (to put it mildly) if President Hillary failed to do what Bush is doing now, if faced with the same circumstances.

how about when we're fighting the "war on guns"?

 

[ceetee]

I don't accept your premise. You assume that if the NSA intercepts a signals communication intercept opportunity it could dial "O" and immediately get a judge's Okeydokey to record... hardly! You are not realistically understanding the process, one in which I know intimately by the way.

I content that military communication (DoD) overseen by civilian employees (NSA) deal with 'needles in haystacks' with both landline and cellular communications traffic and opportunities rarely present themselves to know ahead of the time either caller or callee in a telephone circuit connection of anykind, particularly one in which one end of line originates internationally and may indeed be scrambled. I further contend that none of this intelligence violates any law; terrorism and its planning is the illegality. During WWII this sort of signals intelligence was practiced every day and led to the breaking of the Germany's Enigma-encrypted communications code. Congress gave the president authorization to fight terrorism and this signals intelligence is key part of it. The mistake, if there was one, was for anyone in the federal government (DoD, NSA, or the Executive Office) to give the traitors in the media and in the Democrat party the time of day on this issue. It would be much better to simply ignore questions on it, knowing that those that question it are themselves suspect.

The point you're glossing over (purposefully, I feel sure) is that according to FISA, there's absolutely no need to have that judge on speed dial "O". He isn't going anywhere. They have a legal right to record any communications they capture. If those signals turn out to be America-based, they have three days in which to apply for a warrant, and either receive one, or be denied. Anything you say otherwise is either misinformation, or an outright lie.

Wrong is wrong. The current administration is going outside the confines and intents of the law, and it needs to be stopped. Whether or not past Presidents or past administrations overstepped the bounds of the law is no excuse for tis administration to go there. You can contend anything you want... wrong is still wrong.

As for the "War on Terrorism"... You can't fight "terror"... The most you can do is fight terrorists. Many of which reside in this country. Many of whom deserve to have their phones bugged, and their conversations eavesdropped on... legally. It's too easy to get a warrant; Why is it that Bush and Co. feel no need to? You still haven't answered. Your "street cop" analogy won't hold water. When cops run your tag, they're just finding out if you have a valid tag and/or any outstanding arrest warrants. They're not listening in on your cell phone conversation. Although they can.

If they get a warrant first.

 

[M2Pilot]

I sometimes don't agree with Biker but I'm with him all the way on this one. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I don't understand what the big deal is. 'Surveillance' is limited to international calls, correct? How many of us talk to terrorists overseas???

If you think a little wiretapping is bad, how about this? Police stop and search 100 people a day under new anti-terror laws

 

[Standing Wolf]

While large flocks of articulate individuals debate this tempest in a tea pot, the nation continues to do precisely nothing about the Islamic terrorist savages.

Tapping telephone calls doesn't stop terrorism.

Bush's people should have followed both the letter and spirit of the law, and should not, in any event, have allowed anything of this story to see the light of day. Their internal security is obviously flimsy.

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iran...

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi Manedwolf-

"...Can you write your own opinion on matters, or just, in general, quote regurgitated RoveCo spin?.."

Jeez, we're talking about overseas calls that ORIGINATE from dangerous people already on a terrorist watch list. I make it a point not to make new friends with militant Pakistani muslims while I'm waiting for a connecting flight at the airport. That way I don't have to worry about them telephoning me from Karachi someday.

The government isn't sitting around listening to you whisper to your girlfriend while your wife reads the newspaper in the living room. Judging by the Karl Rove swipe in your post it sounds like you would have preferred one of the ever-elusive plans from Senator John Kerry.

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2006_01_09.html

 

[Sir Aardvark]

"I would never buy a used car, but I sure love my pre-owned vehicle!"

Ya gotta love those marketing people.

____________________________________________________________

Function Creep...... people, Function Creep........

This surveillance thing will start off being used for what it says, and then sooner or later will encompass more and more.

I've yet to see a case where government has grown smaller.