NSA spying on US Citizens

[Bort]

Great, what next, roving CIA death squads in the streets of the USA? Way to go George, just when I thought you couldn't sink any further. :down: :stare: :o
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4534488.stm

[August]

Some officials said the programme had helped to uncover several terror plots, including one by a Ohio lorry driver who was jailed in 2003 for supporting al-Qaeda and targeting a New York bridge for sabotage.

[Bort]

In my opinion the sucess or failure of the NSA's domestic spying is moot. What is at issue here is the moral and ethical boundry that has been crossed by allowing an intelligence agency to spy on its own citizens without legal boundries.

[August]

* Bort]In my opinion the sucess or failure of the NSA's domestic spying is moot. What is at issue here is the moral and ethical boundry that has been crossed by allowing an intelligence agency to spy on its own citizens without legal boundries.

Unless its members of your family that are killed in one of the terror attacks it prevented...

[Skybird]

The path to arbitrariness is paved with good intentions.

In principle there must not be anything bad in preemptive monitoring. But there needs to be a countercontrolling instance making sure this monitoring gremium gets not abused; and the countercontrolling gremium itself also needs to be beyond doubt of having different interests. A basic principle of every democratic system: countercontrol. Bypassing it must be followed by penalty. Practices must be correctly labelled. Rules must be followed. No matter what the intention is.

[Neptunus Rex]

..."The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said eavesdropping in the US without a court order and without complying with the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was "both illegal and unconstitutional"...

The same ACLU that considers the public display of Christmas Trees to be illegal? :damn: :damn: :damn:

[U-214]

Great, what next, roving CIA death squads in the streets of the USA? Way to go George, just when I thought you couldn't sink any further.

No,that's more likely in Europe.In fact i am shocked that the EU has still avoided to start investigation about CIA illegal flights and deportation of immigrants ,although there are similar alleged cases in many EU countries.Only a Swiss Senator said pubblically that the claims are credible and asked the Council of Europe to do something:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4524864.stm

It's a disgrace that EU isn't asking for investigation of such serious allegations.Probably because,if proven true,it would hurt politically all the governing parties...

[Etienne]

..."The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said eavesdropping in the US without a court order and without complying with the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was "both illegal and unconstitutional"...

The same ACLU that considers the public display of Christmas Trees to be illegal? :damn: :damn: :damn:

First, I don't see any contradiction in the two ideas.

Second, the ACLU does not consider the display of Christmas Trees to be illegal. What it fight against is the support of a religion by the government - and, by extension, by public services and agencies - of the United States. As forbidden by some obscure article of law. :roll:

You can display a tree all you want. But the government, a publically funded school or a courthouse cannot use tax-payer funded ressources to promote a religion - And yes, that might include a Christmas tree, unless efforts are made to make the display non-denominational.

A boatload of people would get angry if the local post office had a ramadan display. It's the same damn thing. The government cannot support a religion, any religion. Christian or otherwise.

And that's a damn good principle of law. I wish Canada had it.

As for randomly listening to people's conversations - There's a thing called the right to privacy, and... I don't remember the wording, and I don't have the US constitution bookmarked anymore (DONE! DONE with Poli-sci!), but... Illegal search and seizure, anyone?

Unless its members of your family that are killed in one of the terror attacks it prevented...

It's hard to be killed in a terrorist attack that didn't take place. You have to be REALLY unlucky.

What you're doing is a crass appeal to sentiments ; there is no way to know who, if anyone, would have been killed in those "Terrorist attacks". Would they have ever taken place? Who knows. Would attempts really have been made to perpetrate them?

Randomly listening in on law-abidding citizens is kind of akin to randomly arresting people and interrogating them. Just to check. Or randomly searching people on the street - Once in a while, just once in a while, you might catch someone with a knife, and that knife could have been used to kill someone!

So what if the guy had just borrowed it from a friend to carve a turkey? If he'd killed members of your familly with it, you'd think otherwise!

[Neptunus Rex]

And the Chinese, Japanese, Soviets, and any other techically capable nation, or those that can pay others for such equipment are not monitoring cell phone usage or those of other nations!

If it's on the air waves, it is being monitored by someone, somewhere.

If I talk in public, I can expect someone other than the person I'm talking to be listening! Using a cell phone is just the same as yelling across a room. Cell phones are fancy radio's, aren't they.

This is not to defend the NSA, but to note the hippocrisy of a story based on a document (released by persons whose intent is not known) that has not been verified by second sources. Seems to me that the media is using the authors credibility as the validation.

Hey, they did try to verify the story, but received a no-comment or non-comment, that should be good enough. Hey, wait, they can use the media created refrain, "We offered them the opportunity to deny the story, they didn't, so it must be true!

[MadMike]

BSKYB IRDWW EAREW ATCHI NGYOU HAVEC ELLRE SERVE DGITM OSORR YNOJA GERSC HNITZ ELORC OLABI ERHEL LONEAL

Yours, Mike

[Takeda Shingen]

..."The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said eavesdropping in the US without a court order and without complying with the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was "both illegal and unconstitutional"...

The same ACLU that considers the public display of Christmas Trees to be illegal? :damn: :damn: :damn:

First, I don't see any contradiction in the two ideas.

Second, the ACLU does not consider the display of Christmas Trees to be illegal. What it fight against is the support of a religion by the government - and, by extension, by public services and agencies - of the United States. As forbidden by some obscure article of law. :roll:

You can display a tree all you want. But the government, a publically funded school or a courthouse cannot use tax-payer funded ressources to promote a religion - And yes, that might include a Christmas tree, unless efforts are made to make the display non-denominational.

A boatload of people would get angry if the local post office had a ramadan display. It's the same damn thing. The government cannot support a religion, any religion. Christian or otherwise.

And that's a damn good principle of law. I wish Canada had it.

Acutally, the separation of church and state was established to prevent the formation of a goverment sponsored church, ie The Church of England, which is where most of the founding fathers had come from. It was never intended to prevent the public celebration of any religious holiday on public or private ground. In fact, Sunday Christian services were held in the Capitol Building until the early 20th Century. Thusly, the notion of government-enforced secularism is a strictly modern sentiment.

Furthermore, if the postmaster is a follower of Islam, I would encourage him to demonstrate his adherance to faith. After all, we do allow people to pray at Giant's Stadium. The taxpayers of the state of New Jersey seem to have no issue with that.

[Bort]

I found this statement, on the NSA's website- linked right from the front page http://www.nsa.gov/coremsgs/corem00003.cfm
well, so much for that... Bush may have commited a serious violation of the law. Also, the NSA is a partially military agency, commanded by an Army General and employing large numbers of military personnel, unlike the CIA. Posse Comitatus anyone?

[August]

What you're doing is a crass appeal to sentiments ; there is no way to know who, if anyone, would have been killed in those "Terrorist attacks". Would they have ever taken place? Who knows. Would attempts really have been made to perpetrate them?

I'd say that planning would certainly be a precursor to the implementation, wouldn't you?

Randomly listening in on law-abidding citizens is kind of akin to randomly arresting people and interrogating them. Just to check. Or randomly searching people on the street - Once in a while, just once in a while, you might catch someone with a knife, and that knife could have been used to kill someone!

First off, its not random surveillance, nor was it done outside both congressional and judicial review.

Here's the link to the original story:
here (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?hp&ex=1134795600&en=c7596fe0d4798785&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

Note the liberal use of statements by "unnamed former officials" and heresay mention of undisclosed reports. As a matter of fact there doesn't seem to be one single directly attributable statement of wrongdoing by anyone from the government in the entire article.

Make up your own mind what you want to believe, but FYI the NY Times just about defines the term "liberal rag". They have a history of making stories up (google Jayson Blair), and are owned by Viacomm whose Chairman Sumner Redstone descibes himself as a "Liberal Democrat" that has given huge amounts of money to the Democratic party. Viacomm also owns CBS. Remember the Dan Rather forged documents scandal?

Shame on the BBC for buying into partisan politics like that.

[Torpedo Fodder]

What I don't understand is, if they wanted to spy on the communications of US citizens, why didn't they just get the British GCHQ to to it and relay that information to the NSA through ECHELON?

[Zachstar]

Because we are toooo good to depend on other countries to help our fasist ways.

Watergate anyone?

Lets put this into comparason.

Clinton nearly impeached for having sex.. harmed: 1
Nixon resigns and nearly is impeached... harmed: A party
Bush commits this serious violation of the law.. Harmed: A country

[U-552Erich-Topp]

:) Oh no, that Bush guy is at it again. The next election should prove interesting.

[August]

Because we are toooo good to depend on other countries to help our fasist ways.

Watergate anyone?

Lets put this into comparason.

Clinton nearly impeached for having sex.. harmed: 1
Nixon resigns and nearly is impeached... harmed: A party
Bush commits this serious violation of the law.. Harmed: A country

Interesting take, but:

Clinton was nearly impeached for perjury not having sex. That arguably harmed the Democratic party if you count the loss of both houses of Congress to the Republicans on his watch as well as the next two presidential terms.

Nixon did some harm to the republican party but really only for 4 years. On the other hand he got us out of a highly unpopular war started by the Democrats as well as ended the draft.

Regardless of what the NY Times is saying, Bush hasn't violated the law and that extra survellance (which was instituted with the knowledge of Congress and the federal judiciary) has foiled several terrorist plots on our soil.

[Iceman]

Your point Skybird I agree with and is correct....Checks and Balances are what is needed or supposed to have been in place...the circumstances that rocked my country cannot be used for any"one" persons agenda.

Other side of the coin to the whole thing I think is kinda silly....why do Americans think it is such a horror ..."O how dare they easedrop on an American Citizen" but it is ok to listen in on ALL other countries conversations?.....what's good for the goose is ok with me....

One who does not break the law has nothing to fear....Checks and Balances again are key here.


Following a recent conversation between Iceman and his children....

"Hi dad...
Hi sweetie....
Hows your day going?....
O.K.....Just putting up with the smell of dog poop in this customers backyard while I am installing there phone/internet/and tv service....
That's gross dad....
Yea but dad does it because he loves you guys.
We love you dad...
I love you too sweetie....I'll see you when I get home....
OK daddy....buckle up....
I always do sweetie...bye bye
Bye..."

Big national security threat here....lol. :)

[Torpedo Fodder]

Because we are toooo good to depend on other countries to help our fasist ways.

Well you did get Britain and Australia to follow you into your imperialist fascist invasion of Iraq ;).

[Zachstar]

To get these guys they should have issued warrants. Its in the bill of rights!

AS for these plots? What was it that made them where they had to have instant ability to spy? If they were suspected terrorists then it should have been a run to get the warrant then back to get the evidence.

Ya they may have gotten some terrorists. Hmmm im bored how about we go find some dirt on the anti-war people? Oh and lets spy on the Democrats! Hey because we prefer this oil company to this one lets gather info and secretly sell it to the one we like.

You cant guarantee me this will not happen without warants PERIOD These people can not be trusted with our country any longer.

Unless you get an amendment stiking down this amendment then the constitution is the final law.

This is Bush thinking he was above the law
Just as Nixon did

[MadMike]

Perhaps once the grandstanding politicians and left wing nutcases like Ted Kennedy have their say, the facts will speak for themselves. Have any of you bothered to read the NSA charter or federal laws pertaining to NSA's mission? :know:

Yours, Mike

[Konovalov]

The path to arbitrariness is paved with good intentions.

In principle there must not be anything bad in preemptive monitoring. But there needs to be a countercontrolling instance making sure this monitoring gremium gets not abused; and the countercontrolling gremium itself also needs to be beyond doubt of having different interests. A basic principle of every democratic system: countercontrol. Bypassing it must be followed by penalty. Practices must be correctly labelled. Rules must be followed. No matter what the intention is.

You could really sum this up by the phrase a system of checks and balances. :know: And as you said, this is a fundamental principle of every democratic system.

[August]

To get these guys they should have issued warrants. Its in the bill of rights!

AS for these plots? What was it that made them where they had to have instant ability to spy? If they were suspected terrorists then it should have been a run to get the warrant then back to get the evidence.

Ya they may have gotten some terrorists. Hmmm im bored how about we go find some dirt on the anti-war people? Oh and lets spy on the Democrats! Hey because we prefer this oil company to this one lets gather info and secretly sell it to the one we like.

You cant guarantee me this will not happen without warants PERIOD These people can not be trusted with our country any longer.

Unless you get an amendment stiking down this amendment then the constitution is the final law.

This is Bush thinking he was above the law
Just as Nixon did

Must be nice to see things so black and white.

Seriously, if you dismiss the possibility they foiled some terrorist plots and saved some lives, then I reject your "hmm, i'm bored" possibilities as well. I'm talking about things that did happen, you're talking about things that might happen, but only if a whole lot of other things happen as well.

Please read this carefully: It. was. NOT. done. in. secret!

Congressional leaders from BOTH parties knew about it beforehand as did the controlling judiciary, as well as various other law enforcement and national security agencies who are required to obey the law and report violations of said laws.

Besides, your Nixon analogy doesn't work as Tricky Dick never would, or could, have signed a presidential order to bug the Watergate. Executive orders are written official documents that become a part of the permanent national record. It'd be like a bank robber mailing his plans to the cops beforehand. Because what he was doing was illegal, Nixon went unofficially through intermediaries, and being the amateurs they were, bungled the job and got caught.

Secondly, Nixon did what he did for pure personal gain. Bush did what he did without personal gain and apparently a fair amount of risk to his legacy, in order to protect the country against its enemies. Can't you see the difference between the two?

You do understand that we are in a war right? The people we're fighting will continue to use our own technology and laws against us to kill as many of our people as possible. I say that any president who wouldn't do whatever he could to keep another 9-11 from happening again would be the real criminal.

[The Avon Lady]

I have yet to see a substansive explanation of exactly what was illegal in these actions.

All very vague, for the moment.

In general, I agree with August, as long as strong checks and balances are in place. Yes, all hard to ascertain.

This isn't being done for fun or to find out who the Democrats are talking about over their mobile phones as their next presidential candidate.

There are lots of very bad people out there - and I'm not talking about New Jersey drivers. :nope:

[Godalmighty83]

preserving freedom by removing it? no thanks.

[The Avon Lady]

preserving freedom by removing it? no thanks.
Nice cliche.

But that's all it is - at least under present circumstances as we know them.

[The Avon Lady]

Here's a simple question to the reactionary Bush-bashers among you:

Had an attack that could have been prevented succeeded because these covert efforts wouldn't have taken place and thousands of people would have been killed, would you have been the first ones to stand up for the Bush administration and proclaim what a great job he's doing defending the US and everyone's civil liberties?

Nuts.

[August]

Here's a simple question to the reactionary Bush-bashers among you:

Had an attack that could have been prevented succeeded because these covert efforts wouldn't have taken place and thousands of people would have been killed, would you have been the first ones to stand up for the Bush administration and proclaim what a great job he's doing defending the US and everyone's civil liberties?

Nuts.

Good luck getting an answer to that AV.

[The Avon Lady]

I will just add that, though I did vote for Bush in the last election, I did so as the choice between the "lesser of two evils", so to speak. I continue to be unimpressed by his overall performance but this issue will not add or detract from my current opinion, unless some super illegality or goof-up was definitely involved.

[Bort]

Well, so much for your vast left wing media consipracy, August, Bushy has admitted it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4538286.stm
Also, If a terrorist attack occured and Bush had done everything LEGAL in his power to prevent it, I would not criticize him. You know there is such a thing as POLICE WORK that involves all of those pesky COURTS and RIGHTS. It seems to me all of this spying is an excuse to be lazy and arbitrary, not to protect the US by doing the job right. :stare:

[The Avon Lady]

* Bort]Well, so much for your vast left wing media consipracy,
Did we miss something? Who said such?
August, Bushy has admitted it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4538286.stm
This was in the news yesterday. It's old news already.
Also, If a terrorist attack occured and Bush had done everything LEGAL in his power to prevent it, I would not criticize him. You know there is such a thing as POLICE WORK that involves all of those pesky COURTS and RIGHTS. It seems to me all of this spying is an excuse to be lazy and arbitrary, not to protect the US by doing the job right. :stare:
And you're a national security expert to make such an assessment? Your real life job is what exactly?

And I keep on asking to clearly lay out what was illegal here? Are there any facts on this anywhere?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Inter Arma Silent Leges. Or something like that.

Mike, you refer to the NSA's charter. I thought that for the NSA had to get a FISA warrant to monitor an American? Could you clarify please?

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if what Bush did was illegal. And Congress DID NOT know. Him briefing the Congressional leaders means a handful of people knew. I understand that if he actually took it to Congress, it wouldn't be secret anymore. IMO, Bush is on very thin ice. But he's not going to get in trouble for it because it's war time. And if it really did prevent attacks I think it was worth it. Illegal, but worth it. Kind of like the suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. Or the Emancipation Proclamation, arguably.

I believe in his speech he said he did it about 30 times. I don't see why it couldn't have gone through FISA, as FISA requests are rarely denied.

PD

[Type941]

"Hi dad...
Hi sweetie....................
I always do sweetie...bye bye
Bye..."

I can think of few much different scenarios which can be totally taken the wrong way.

Like mentioning your freind Jamey has started taking flight school classes and you are thinking of giving it a try yourself. Good luck with the rest.

I'm sure finding out what's it like to live with KGB-type organization next to you is not going to be comforting. And knowing how they get the information, with incompetent personnel that at times tortures you, well... Id' be hoping never to get in the path of those people, who consider everyone on this war on terror to be void of any human rights. So if you are a suspect - good luck. Checks and Balances... Man this has become such a cliche.

[TLAM Strike]

Inter Arma Silent Leges. Or something like that.
"Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges"

[PeriscopeDepth]

Inter Arma Silent Leges. Or something like that.
"Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges"

Thanks, TLAM. :)

[The Avon Lady]

Hot off the wireless!

Text of Bush's radio address (http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_12_11_corner-archive.asp#084995).

[August]

* Bort]Well, so much for your vast left wing media consipracy, August, Bushy has admitted it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4538286.stm
Also, If a terrorist attack occured and Bush had done everything LEGAL in his power to prevent it, I would not criticize him. You know there is such a thing as POLICE WORK that involves all of those pesky COURTS and RIGHTS. It seems to me all of this spying is an excuse to be lazy and arbitrary, not to protect the US by doing the job right. :stare:

Yeah i read the article. So what? nobody ever denied surveillance occured but whether said surveillance was omg "illegal".

From your BBC article. Note the bolded part:

But in his address on Saturday, Mr Bush said the programme was "critical to saving American lives".

The president said some of the 11 September hijackers inside the United States had communicated with associates outside the country before the attacks - but that the US had not known that until it was too late.

"The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and our civil liberties," he said.

He said Congressional leaders had been briefed on the programme, which has been renewed more than 30 times.

In spite of the irepeated ncorrect spelling of "program" please note that not only was Congress involved in the process from the start, they've had 30 opportunities to put a stop to it.

So again i ask: Why is this suddenly a big deal?

[August]

Hot off the wireless!

Text of Bush's radio address (http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_12_11_corner-archive.asp#084995).

I'll bet the only ones who bother to click that link are those who haven't made up their minds that Bush is teh Hitler.

[MadMike]

Periscope Depth,
First, you'll have to review the federal register to define what "monitoring" is (in the legal sense).
Say, when is the media going to divulge when such activity (gasp) was taking place during the Clinton era?!?

Yours, Mike

[Kiwi Zero Six]

Supposedly all the intercepts were done on the receiving end of the comms...no big deal.

[Fish]

Here's a simple question to the reactionary Bush-bashers among you:

Had an attack that could have been prevented succeeded because these covert efforts wouldn't have taken place and thousands of people would have been killed, would you have been the first ones to stand up for the Bush administration and proclaim what a great job he's doing defending the US and everyone's civil liberties?

Nuts.

Tut tut, thats a false argument, and your clever enough to know. :|\

[PeriscopeDepth]

Briefing Congressional leaders does not mean he was acting with the authority of the legislative behind him.

PD

[U-552Erich-Topp]

:) August, I agree with you on that statement. Although maybe Bush is actually the Anti-christ and not Adolf Hitler the 2nd.

[PeriscopeDepth]

For the record, I don't hate Bush and I think these intercepts were the right thing to do if they saved lives.

I'm just debating whether or not they were legal.

PD

[Onkel Neal]

The path to arbitrariness is paved with good intentions.

In principle there must not be anything bad in preemptive monitoring. But there needs to be a countercontrolling instance making sure this monitoring gremium gets not abused; and the countercontrolling gremium itself also needs to be beyond doubt of having different interests. A basic principle of every democratic system: countercontrol. Bypassing it must be followed by penalty. Practices must be correctly labelled. Rules must be followed. No matter what the intention is.

Well said :up:

[August]

Briefing Congressional leaders does not mean he was acting with the authority of the legislative behind him.

PD

Which returns us to the question of why, after 4 whole years, is it now suddenly a big deal.

I'd venture to say that if there was the slightest hint of actual impropriety it would have been used against Bush in the last presidential election.

"Tempest in a teapot" i believe is the proper political term for this issue.

[The Avon Lady]

"Tempest in a teapot" i believe is the proper political term for this issue.
I wonder whether the NYTimes releasing this story to the public is also only a TIATP.

We'll see. According to Bush, someone who revealed this confidential information committed a crime. In addition, as is mentioned all over the place by now, it must've woken up and alerted a number of suspects who just became that much wiser.

[August]

"Tempest in a teapot" i believe is the proper political term for this issue.
I wonder whether the NYTimes releasing this story to the public is also only a TIATP.

We'll see. According to Bush, someone who revealed this confidential information committed a crime. In addition, as is mentioned all over the place by now, it must've woken up and alerted a number of suspects who just became that much wiser.

I wonder if the author of that article will still think promoting his book at the expense of national security will have been worth it.

[lesrae]

In spite of the irepeated ncorrect spelling of "program" please note that not only was Congress involved in the process from the start, they've had 30 opportunities to put a stop to it.

Not wishing to be pedantic or OT, but programme is the correct English spelling and so the BBC tend to use it.

[Type941]

those who say color will never accept the "programme". :-j

[U-214]

With the logic of "what if Bush's illegal actions had saved us from a terrorist attack",maybe you should consider also having videosurveillance and bugs in your houses.The terrorists would have much more trouble comunicating freely...

I thought that the condition in Israel has proven that there is no effective weapon against someone who wants to blow himself up.Of course,you can continue to follow Macchiavelli-like dogmas,like the "who cares if it's illegal as long as it might prove useful",but you can forget about the way of life you had or democracy for what matters.Are you going to get used to the sight of road blocks and Abrams tanks in the streets following the Israeli dogma too?Good luck.You 're going to need it.The fact that US hasn't been attacked since 9/11 isn't because of Bush's spying on comunications,but of a choise of them or maybe a megalomany of Laden who likes hollywood-like attacks,while a less glamorous car bomb could have much impact and be very easy to do (unless you make roadblocks and check all incoming vehicles from "suspicious" neighbourhoods like they do in Israel).

Also,instead of sacrificing your civil liberties and rights,you should ask yourselves,how did you get there in the first place and why the terrorists attacked USA and not Switzerland.Terrorists are fanatics,but nobody is born terrorist nor they are schizofrenic.

Regards

[Skybird]

"Why are you always wearing marmelade on your shoulders?"

"It keeps the pink elephants away."

"He...? But there ain't no pink elephants anywhere!"

"You see, it works!"

[Type941]

Basically, it's all about whether you think George Bush in an honest and trustworthy individual. If the answer is definate "YES" than you need not to worry about this, as the law is intended to keep you safe from those who wish to do harm.

If the answer is 'NO' than there is a bit problem, because a person who's a decieving liar can use the 'terrorism' clause to spy on eveyryone, on big corporations, and so on and on, and do justice as they please; and when matters become of public record their answer will be the same: we are doing this to protect you and we already prevented many attacks.

It's very tough. Apparently half of the US voted for BUSH precisely because they viewed him as a moral human being, while the other half not necessarily questioned his morality - it was his competency they weren't happy about. So I reckon it's not all that awful and that he's a good person at the end of the day, only if misguided by his warmonging members of the adminstrations. I hope he indeed holds up to his democracy principles. Otherwise, there's no hope. 2008 election candidates at this stage all look hoaky. May be Baroc O'Bama for president? The guy can talk...

[U-214]

Basically, it's all about whether you think George Bush in an honest and trustworthy individual

I think it's not as simple as that.It's also about whether someone is above the law just because he is in position of power or not.Laws exists exactly for that,to remove the subjective factor from the equation.

I really can't understand why Bush authorized this illegal spying,while the various agencies could have obtained the permission anyway,by legally asking it from a judge.Which judge would refuse to intercept a subject that has "links with terrorists" as bush said?Or judges are also suspicious of treason or collaborating with the terrorists so they would alert he terrorists?Unless,their motives were less noble,such as not to be presentable before a judge...Where there is smoke,there is fire.

[U-214]

P.S:The separation of the executive and judicial branch exists in all democracies for a specific purpose.If Bush wants to substitute the judge and issue himself the orders on who "merits" to be intercepted and who doesn't,at least,he should drop the theatre and "patriot" acts,declare martial law and be over with it.But you can't go out making the "hero" ,the paladin of democracy,while at the same time you have decided to violate basic principles of the democratic political system since you have the power to hide what you do and think that you know best what's good.

Maybe he got used to bypassing laws with lies since his presentation of his "hard proof" evidence of the Iraqui WMD in the UN.

[The Avon Lady]

With the logic of "what if Bush's illegal actions
Stop right there. Again, please clarify what was illegal?

But let's assume so for argument's sake and continue.....
had saved us from a terrorist attack",maybe you should consider also having video surveillance and bugs in your houses.The terrorists would have much more trouble comunicating freely...
Everything has its limits and its consequences. That's true in everything in life. Get used to it. That is not to say that anyone should automatically be absolved from illegalities but sometimes being a civilized human being calls for breaking rules, not adhering to them.
I thought that the condition in Israel
Weeeeeeeeeeeeee. Look at him jump! :hmm:
has proven that there is no effective weapon against someone who wants to blow himself up.
Quite the contrary! The security fence has reduced the cases of terrorist attacks tremendously and saved Israel from dozens of homocide bomber attempts since its inception.

Try researching before posting.

And what is your point anyway? That nothing can stop terrorists? You should try reading daily newspapers before posting, too.
Of course,you can continue to follow Macchiavelli-like dogmas,like the "who cares if it's illegal as long as it might prove useful",
But I do care and I did not say I don't. Go ahead and quote where I said I don't care.
but you can forget about the way of life you had or democracy for what matters.Are you going to get used to the sight of road blocks and Abrams tanks in the streets following the Israeli dogma too?Good luck.You 're going to need it.The fact that US hasn't been attacked since 9/11 isn't because of Bush's spying on comunications,but of a choise of them or maybe a megalomany of Laden who likes hollywood-like attacks,while a less glamorous car bomb could have much impact and be very easy to do (unless you make roadblocks and check all incoming vehicles from "suspicious" neighbourhoods like they do in Israel).
Enjoy your safe Utopia...........................................
Also,instead of sacrificing your civil liberties and rights,you should ask yourselves,how did you get there in the first place and why the terrorists attacked USA and not Switzerland.Terrorists are fanatics,but nobody is born terrorist nor they are schizofrenic.
The answer is Islam and leave schizos out of this.

[The Avon Lady]

Basically, it's all about whether you think George Bush in an honest and trustworthy individual.
I don't trust politicians as a rule. Period. This has nothing unique to do with George Bush except those of you who insist that he can never do right no matter what.
If the answer is definate "YES" than you need not to worry about this, as the law is intended to keep you safe from those who wish to do harm.

If the answer is 'NO' than there is a bit problem, because a person who's a decieving liar
There is a difference between not trusting someone with eyes wide shut and accusing them in advance of being a "deceiving liar".
can use the 'terrorism' clause to spy on eveyryone, on big corporations, and so on and on, and do justice as they please;
Are you now make this your new baseless accusation? Or are you just letting your Hollywood movie experience imagination run wild?
and when matters become of public record their answer will be the same: we are doing this to protect you and we already prevented many attacks.
What if it's true? And you know otherwise. Please, let us in on your best kept secrets.
It's very tough. Apparently half of the US voted for BUSH precisely because they viewed him as a moral human being, while the other half not necessarily questioned his morality - it was his competency they weren't happy about.
So much jibberish in one sentence.

What about so many of us who voted for the better candidate or the lesser of two evils? What polls do you based your assumptions on that is was a 50/50 moral/immoral based election? Such baseless rantings? Get real!
So I reckon it's not all that awful and that he's a good person at the end of the day, only if misguided by his warmonging members of the adminstrations.
Did we ever get the feeling that your highly opinionated?

Does somebody here really have to bother pasting all the pre and post 9/11 quotes from all th major Democratic party higher ups (Mr. & Mrs. Clinton, Albright, Rockefeller, Kerry, et al) that threatened and eve demanded military action against Iraq?
I hope he indeed holds up to his democracy principles. Otherwise, there's no hope. 2008 election candidates at this stage all look hoaky. May be Baroc O'Bama for president? The guy can talk...
But can he act? :hmm:

[bradclark1]

I wonder if the author of that article will still think promoting his book at the expense of national security will have been worth it.

I would think the badies use some sort of security protocol anyway because of the chances of interception.

[U-214]

By Avon Lady:
Stop right there.

Yes madam!We will cut our sentences as you wish.Syntax has no meaning.

Again, please clarify what was illegal?

In most democracies that i know,there is required judicial approval to intercept comunications of citizens.This seems to be the case in USA too:

American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4538286.stm

If Bush decides to bypass courts by giving the orders,i think that's why this news finished in the first page of all newspapers worldwide.If it was all normal what's all the fuss about it?And i repeat again.If Bush was doing nothing wrong on chosing who to spy,why didn't he follow the normal procedure of getting the judges to do their job?

But let's assume so for argument's sake and continue.....

You will forgive me,but i don't continue a dialogue with people that either don't know syntax or try to manipulate a text to their pleasure in order to facilitate their positions.

I also think that your replies show clearly you are quite biased in certain matters that have to do with Islam and Israel.

So i remain in my Utopia and leave you in your safe heaven.

Regards

P.S:Americans : You can start building the security fence.And Bush will choose who is to be left out :)

[Etienne]

"Why are you always wearing marmelade on your shoulders?"

"It keeps the pink elephants away."

"He...? But there ain't no pink elephants anywhere!"

"You see, it works!"

Have you ever seen the Simspsons episode with the bear patrol? It demonstrates America's reaction to this concept. The scene goes about like this :

Lisa : This whole thing is pointless, it's like saying this rock keeps the tigers away!

Homer : How does it work?

Lisa : It doesn't! There just aren't any tigers around!

Homer : Lisa, I'll give you five dollars for that rock.

[bradclark1]

Did we ever get the feeling that your highly opinionated?
That's a little humorous coming from you AL. :)
The problem with security fences/walls is that they keep you in as well as them out. Freedom?
Not to steer away from the present topic but I often think about how all this effects the younger generation in Israel. It really must be hell in some ways.

[The Avon Lady]

Did we ever get the feeling that your highly opinionated?
That's a little humorous coming from you AL. :)
:yep: :rotfl:
The problem with security fences/walls is that they keep you in as well as them out. Freedom?
My freedom of movement is a limited by the threat of terrorist attacks - not by any fence. So what exactly is your point and aren't we veering off-topic?
Not to steer away from the present topic but I often think about how all this effects the younger generation in Israel. It really must be hell in some ways.
My children, ranging in ages from 20 down to 7, are all fine, thank you, and better informed of realities than the children who were born 10+years earlier and thought that bringing the world's worst terrorists in from Tunis and giving them automatic weapons was a good idea.

That's not to say there aren't problems. There are 10's of thousands of traumatized Israelis who have been directly and indirectly affected by terrorist events over the last 2 decades, with temporary and permanent physical and psycological scars.

[tycho102]

The NSA's job, like the military's, starts at the borders. The borders, outward. Whatever crosses the border, that's when they get to play. Because we have cities that are right on the border, historically, we've given the job over to some type of police department (Border Patrol). Even though their paychecks are from the Department of Tranportation, the Coast Guard is a member of the military (rather than police), and they do their job at the border.

The answer is to secure the damn borders, and stop giving H2 visas to every low-life that has the cash to "pay" for it from their Sugar Daddy. In that manner, the question of the NSA monitoring "domestic" traffic never becomes an issue.

The NSA was monitoring international calls. Not calls from Dallas to Miami, or Reno to Los Angeles. Calls from Miami to Havana, or Beruit. The NSA was standing their post at the border, keeping always on the alert, noticing everything that happens within sight or hearing. And that is their job. Change the laws if you don't want it to be their job any longer.

But I'll be frank, here. I'm tired of my liberties being revoked or otherwise limited, because the terrorists have sleeper cells in the country. I'm tired of the Patriot Act being used by Sony BMG and Universal Pictures to protect their business model, because the politicians can't refuse the campaign donations from the special interest lobbying groups.

[Type941]

Avon Lady, you can go on and on trying to object to anything that's being said without offering your own point of view except of "Oh, I think this, but if you look from another side, it's this"... Quote every single sentence (which is extremely annoying btw, since you bound to take things out of content) and prove some point you have, but I still don't understand if you think what Bush is doing is ok or not ok.
It is great though to see you have a sense of humour. Especially when you call me opinionated. You, one of THE most opinionated people here!! :rotfl:

Call me a consipiracy theorist, but so was Winston Churchill. He was right too. So I'm in good company. :up:

[The Avon Lady]

Call me a consipiracy theorist, but so was Winston Churchill. He was right too. So I'm in good company. :up:
Not quite. Churchill was a true realist. And that is precisely the point.

[Type941]

Call me a consipiracy theorist, but so was Winston Churchill. He was right too. So I'm in good company. :up:
Not quite. Churchill was a true realist. And that is precisely the point.

Yeah yeah, nice try. :smug: You can only call him realist today with hindsight of what you know now.

[The Avon Lady]

Call me a consipiracy theorist, but so was Winston Churchill. He was right too. So I'm in good company. :up:
Not quite. Churchill was a true realist. And that is precisely the point.
Yeah yeah, nice try. :smug: You can only call him realist today with hindsight of what you know now.
Um, no. :nope: :-?

[August]

those who say color will never accept the "programme". :-j

Dig it. We got rid of the extra U's and MEs at Yorktown along with the British.

[PeriscopeDepth]

For all those that keep on asking what might have been illegal; it gets posted time and again and rarely gets responded to.

Bush ordered the surveillance of American citizens without any court approval, no legislative approval (other than approval from a handful of people, several who seem to be taking the "Wiretaps?! I had no idea!" CYA route), and also there was no oversight to protect from abuse. The question is does he have the legal authority, whether as CinC during wartime or from something else.

Yes, I know it probably saved lives. I don't care whether he had the moral authority to order it, whether Clinton did it, but I do wonder whether or not it was within the law. Just an interesting question to me. :) Any takers? I'm undecided, personally.

PD

[August]

I wonder if the author of that article will still think promoting his book at the expense of national security will have been worth it.

I would think the badies use some sort of security protocol anyway because of the chances of interception.

Very probably, and their security protocols are improved upon every time somebody exposes our methods and capabilities.

[U-214]

Very probably, and their security protocols are improved upon every time somebody exposes our methods and capabilities.

I would say that is certain!They must have watched some tv at least...It doesn't take a genious to think that comunications aren't secure.They don't call like "Hasan?It's me Omar.Do you think next Thursday is a good day for putting the bomb that i have kept in these months in the abbandoned garage at 24 Elm Street?".Even 50 years ago,you see in films that the allies were passing messages through the Red Cross announcements.Only the receiving part knew for what announcement to look for.It's no secret that Echelon alone,is programmed to intercept anything with specific keywords and that is known for years now.So you can expect them to use some form of code and use innocent means of comunication.

P.S:If Bush had hard proof that his abuse of power had indeed led to prevention of attack or arrest of terrorists,you can bet he would be running to call the journalists by now.Because:

-It would serve to soften his abuse saying "Ok,i did it,but look at this!".Instead,now they only defence is "Ok,i did it,but what if i had caught someone".
-It would boost the US citizen morale showing finally tangible fruits of the antiterrorist efforts and that the various "patriot" acts have proven their use.
-It would have given huge political gains and prestige to Bush himself and give the Republicans a strong card to play in internal politics.

[Type941]

those who say color will never accept the "programme". :-j

Dig it. We got rid of the extra U's and MEs at Yorktown along with the British.

Good for you. :-?

[August]

P.S:If Bush had hard proof that his abuse of power had indeed led to prevention of attack or arrest of terrorists,you can bet he would be running to call the journalists by now.Because:

-It would serve to soften his abuse saying "Ok,i did it,but look at this!".Instead,now they only defence is "Ok,i did it,but what if i had caught someone".
-It would boost the US citizen morale showing finally tangible fruits of the antiterrorist efforts and that the various "patriot" acts have proven their use.
-It would have given huge political gains and prestige to Bush himself and give the Republicans a strong card to play in internal politics.

No, thats the last thing a good leader would do because it tells the enemy how they were nabbed. It tells the enemy that whatever codes and other security procedures they are using have been compromised.

Take WW2 for example. Had the allies went public with Ultra it would have achieved similar objectives to those you mention, but that would also have rendered it useless for gaining subsequent intelligence.

And PS: The administration has mentioned several plots that have been foiled including one to blow up the Brooklyn bridge, so your analogy "Ok,i did it,but what if i had caught someone" is way off base..

[August]

those who say color will never accept the "programme". :-j

Dig it. We got rid of the extra U's and MEs at Yorktown along with the British.

Good for you. :-?

Yep all thats left here is "US", get it? As in "U.S."?

Bwahahahaha! I crack me up!

[U-214]

No, thats the last thing a good leader would do because it tells the enemy how they were nabbed. It tells the enemy that whatever codes and other security procedures they are using have been compromised.

Take WW2 for example. Had the allies went public with Ultra it would have achieved similar objectives to those you mention, but that would also have rendered it useless for gaining subsequent intelligence.

And PS: The administration has mentioned several plots that have been foiled including one to blow up the Brooklyn bridge, so your analogy "Ok,i did it,but what if i had caught someone" is way off base..

What you say about not betraying their knowledge of the broken code makes sense,but there is something that i m not sure if it can be comparable to WWII.In WWII ,losing a battle or a sub,couldn't betray the fact the german code was broken.Because it's war,the enemy may make better manouvers or have a lucky encounter ,so you can't suspect your code is broken.In fact the Germans never did.When Rommel was stopped in North Africa ,also thanks to Enigma,it seemed a normal military manouver ,well made from the British side and indeed that could have been a logical explanation for the Germans.

In terrorism though,the situation is less prone to "luck".There are no "lucky" events in such a war,because the enemy is hidden and your goal is to prevent him from striking.Both finding him and preventing him from striking,means that you got there first by intelligence,not by luck or better "manouvering".So if a terrorist attack is prevented,this automatically rings the alarm bell to the terrorists that their cover isn't good enough and the enemy intelligence has managed to penetrate their comms,simply because there is no other way.I hope i was clear enough.

I didn't know about the Brooklyn Bridge btw,if he prevented it ,i would suppose they got arrested too,right?Because what's the use of letting free terrorists out once they know that they 've had their cover blown?

[August]

What you say about not betraying their knowledge of the broken code makes sense,but there is something that i m not sure if it can be comparable to WWII.In WWII ,losing a battle or a sub,couldn't betray the fact the german code was broken.Because it's war,the enemy may make better manouvers or have a lucky encounter ,so you can't suspect your code is broken.In fact the Germans never did.When Rommel was stopped in North Africa ,also thanks to Enigma,it seemed a normal military manouver ,well made from the British side and indeed that could have been a logical explanation for the Germans.

In terrorism though,the situation is less prone to "luck".There are no "lucky" events in such a war,because the enemy is hidden and your goal is to prevent him from striking.Both finding him and preventing him from striking,means that you got there first by intelligence,not by luck or better "manouvering".So if a terrorist attack is prevented,this automatically rings the alarm bell to the terrorists that their cover isn't good enough and the enemy intelligence has managed to penetrate their comms,simply because there is no other way.I hope i was clear enough.

I didn't know about the Brooklyn Bridge btw,if he prevented it ,i would suppose they got arrested too,right?Because what's the use of letting free terrorists out once they know that they 've had their cover blown?

It might say that the cover isn't good enough but for the enemy the question still remains; which part of that cover is failing?

The problem here is that intelligence gathering is basicly putting pieces of a puzzle together. Every scrap of information has value and you can bet that if this wiretap issue gets to the congressional hearings that some are calling for it's going to give the enemy a lot of insight into our capabilities.

[U-214]

It might say that the cover isn't good enough but for the enemy the question still remains; which part of that cover is failing?

The problem here is that intelligence gathering is basicly putting pieces of a puzzle together. Every scrap of information has value and you can bet that if this wiretap issue gets to the congressional hearings that some are calling for it's going to give the enemy a lot of insight into our capabilities.

As i see it,the cover failliure may be of 2 types.Either someone from the inside is "singing" (a bit difficult given that they are tested fanatics) or that the leak is from the outside ,meaning that either they are under surveillance or that they aren't exposed yet,but their comms have been intercepted(although more unlikely given the US high tech means available).

In any case,the wisest thing would be to change everything,from location to codes,to number of contacts (reduced to minimum),to leave the country if the leak seemed to be from the outside ,so that live to fight another day maybe somewhere else.

What i want to say is,that as long as the terrorists don't decide to strike,yes,it makes sense not arresting then and just monitor them,because one may lead to the other and thus unveil the entire group.But once they get stopped from striking,the only thing that makes sense is to arrest them,because you have nothing more to gain,while on the other hand you may lose him or transform him from group member following orders to rogue solo terrorist that may act out of disperation on his own.

I mean,suppose you stop them once.Out of prudence they become more solitairy,change codes etc.Are you then sure you will brake again their code before they strike again or flee or become solo bombs?Surveillance works well untill the monitored is unaware of it and is confident that his plans are going well and nothing can stop him.Once he sees that there is a leak ,he is of no use anymore ,other than arrest him and interrogate him.There have been several terrorist groups in Europe,and that was the standard procedure that led to their extermination.

As for the Congressional hearings,well yes,i suppose some corrupted politician might leak something to the press for political gain etc,but at the end,for such circumstances you have that special Court,which i supposed is formed by trusted judges,not just anyone.Why not use that and remain within the normality?

[MadMike]

OK, let's try this again. READ THE FEDERAL REGISTER for information on limitations regarding MONITORING.
Is it just me, or does U-214 sound a bit too much like Skybird?

Anyone care to solve my cipher posted a few pages above? Marcel? :roll:

Worth reading-


http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIj.htm


Yours, Mike

[U-214]

Is it just me, or does U-214 sound a bit too much like Skybird?


My German accent must be improving a lot since i started playing SH3,so i ll take it as a compliment :rotfl: Oh well,all republicans sound the same to me too,but this doesn't mean they actually are the same person :D

Anyway,i didn't want to irritate you.I tried to arrive to a logical conclusion.You are not the first contry to have had terrorists and just because Bush told so isn't proof for everyone.Then again,it's your President,you have to live with the conseguences of what he does,so you are free to beleive him or condone him for some things.

Regards

[U-552Erich-Topp]

;) I watched the president of the United States on TV last night. He did not look well when he spoke of the eavesdropping events. Will Bush be impeached like Nixon was, now that Bush has stepped over the line????????

[PeriscopeDepth]

Will Bush be impeached like Nixon was, now that Bush has stepped over the line????????

No. And it's debatable whether he stepped over the line...

PD

[bradclark1]

The problem here is that intelligence gathering is basicly putting pieces of a puzzle together. Every scrap of information has value and you can bet that if this wiretap issue gets to the congressional hearings that some are calling for it's going to give the enemy a lot of insight into our capabilities.
Our capabilities has not been any big secret for years. We are talking wire and wireless communication intercepts here not Ultra. The hoopla is over George authorizing our security apparatus to spy on our own people which is against the law. I'm sure the hows are not going to come into play.
All they gotta do is have a Department of Homeland Security Interior Wire and Wireless Communications Interception Department or DHSIWWCID pronounced "shewsid" with the proper checks and balances then everything will be cozy. Business cards will have to be kind of big to fit the name all on. :) Be a bit of a problem with the Civil Librties crew though. The tapping, not the size of the card.

[bradclark1]

;) I watched the president of the United States on TV last night. He did not look well when he spoke of the eavesdropping events. Will Bush be impeached like Nixon was, now that Bush has stepped over the line????????

No. The Republicans run everything and they will cover for him unless like all rats they sense the ship is sinking then they will turn on him.

[The Avon Lady]

Will Bush be impeached like Nixon was, now that Bush has stepped over the line????????
No. And it's debatable whether he stepped over the line...

But if everyone repeats it often enough, it will be true. :roll:

[retired1212]

spying on US citizens?

ah, never mind. I am going for sleep again :D

[tycho102]

Will Bush be impeached like Nixon was, now that Bush has stepped over the line????????
No. And it's debatable whether he stepped over the line...

But if everyone repeats it often enough, it will be true. :roll:

Which was said by Goebbels. Who most likely learned it from Muhammed.

That's how our mainstream media learned to work in the late 60's and early 70's. The power of suggestion. It worked then, and they're determined to make it work, now...except the internet keeps getting in their way.

[Konovalov]

Will Bush be impeached like Nixon was, now that Bush has stepped over the line????????
No. And it's debatable whether he stepped over the line...

But if everyone repeats it often enough, it will be true. :roll:

Which was said by Goebbels. Who most likely learned it from Muhammed.

That's how our mainstream media learned to work in the late 60's and early 70's. The power of suggestion. It worked then, and they're determined to make it work, now...except the internet keeps getting in their way.

Which has nothing to do with the debate over NSA spying and the alleged invasion of peoples privacy and the breaking of some US law. Try again. :roll: But please by all means provide any substantive evidence to back up your "most likely learned it" theory?

[August]

Which has nothing to do with the debate over NSA spying and the alleged invasion of peoples privacy and the breaking of some US law. Try again. :roll:

Of course it does. :roll:

[Konovalov]

Whatever.

[Rockstar]

The federal government may have the ability to scan every electronic transmission known to mankind but the costs would be astronomical to sift through it all in order to spy on "the citizens". If you narrow your search to specifics and allocate personnel to find them you might find that needle in a haystack.

Until I see congress appropriate funds to dramatically and I do mean dramatically increase personnel and offices with antenas on the roof sprouting like weeds in my neigborhood I like what big brother is doing. Finding those who wish to do harm to me and my country and take care of the matter.

[Iceman]

The federal government may have the ability to scan every electronic transmission known to mankind but the costs would be astronomical to sift through it all in order to spy on "the citizens". If you narrow your search to specifics and allocate personnel to find them you might find that needle in a haystack.

Until I see congress appropriate funds to dramatically and I do mean dramatically increase personnel and offices with antenas on the roof sprouting like weeds in my neigborhood I like what big brother is doing. Finding those who wish to do harm to me and my country and take care of the matter.

Here here...If GWB wants to listen to me and my daughter talk about how my day is going he is welcome to....we all know this is "NOT" what is happening...GWB didn't look to concerned to me other night on tv when he discussed things..looked more pissed off about the leak about doing it ...not that he did any wrong....

Funny all the huff here from peoples who don't even live here "US" lol...very weird and intresting to see that.....but I forget GWB is looked at like he is the anti-christ.....or anti-holiday guy.

:ahoy: I spy dat guy over dere...Hard to port....Fire torps....! Full spread.


If ole GWB has done wrong...he's gone...rest assured my overseas friends.

[The Avon Lady]

I just love it when Malkin gets angry.
The Left's Privacy Hypocrites (http://www.redstatesusa.com/archives/2005/12/the_lefts_priva.html)
By Michelle Malkin

Allow me to sum up the homeland security strategy of America's do-nothing brigade, led by the armchair generals at The New York Times and ACLU headquarters:

First, bar law enforcement at all levels from taking race, ethnicity, national origin and religion into account when assessing radical Islamic terror threats. (But continue to allow the use of those factors to ensure "diversity" in public-college admissions, contracting, and police- and fire-department hiring.)

Second, institute the "Eenie-meenie-miny-moe" random-search program at all subways, railways and bus stations.

Third, open the borders, sabotage all immigration enforcement efforts and scream "Racist" at any law-abiding American who protests.

Fourth, sue. Sue. Sue.

Fifth, yell "Connect the dots!" while rebuilding and strengthening the walls that prevent information-sharing between the CIA, State Department, Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and other key government agencies.

Sixth, hang the white flag and declare victory.

Seventh, sit back and wait to blame the president for failing to take aggressive, preventative measures when the next terrorist attack hits.

Repeat.

The hindsight hypocrisy of the civil-liberties absolutists never ceases to amaze. And their selective outrage over privacy violations never ceases to aggravate. Last Friday, The New York Times splashed classified information about the National Security Agency's surveillance of international communications between suspected al Qaeda operatives and their contacts all over the front page in a naked attempt to sabotage the Patriot Act. This Tuesday, the newspaper continued to stir fears of "spying on all innocent Americans" by recycling old ACLU complaints about FBI monitoring of radical environmental groups, antiwar activists and some Muslim leaders and groups.

Alarmists in the Beltway want investigations (though not of the leakers who fed the Times its story). The civil-liberties sky is falling, they say, and never have Americans been subjected to such invasive snooping.

Funny enough, another story about unprecedented domestic spying measures broke a week before the Times' stunt. But neither the Times nor the ACLU nor the Democratic Party leadership had a peep to say about the reported infringements on Americans' civil liberties. Sen. Charles Schumer (by the way, Chuck, how's that apology to Lt. Gov. Michael Steele over his stolen credit report coming along?) did not rush to the cameras to call the alleged privacy breach "shocking." Sen. Robert Byrd did not awake from his slumber to decry the adoption of "the thuggish practices of our enemies." The indignant New York Times editorial board did not call for heads to roll.

That's because the targets of the spy scandal that didn't make the front-page headlines were politically incorrect right-wing extremists.

According to the McCurtain Daily Gazette, in the days after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the U.S. government used a spy satellite to gather intelligence on a white separatist compound in Oklahoma. The paper obtained a Secret Service log showing that on May 2, 1995, two weeks after the April 19 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that killed 168 people, the FBI was trying to locate suspects for questioning.

Investigators zeroed in on the compound in nearby Elohim City. "Satellite assets have been tasked to provide intelligence concerning the compound," the document said, according to the Gazette and Associate Press. The Gazette noted that "America's spy-satellite program is jointly under the control of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). Targeting decisions are classified; however, persons familiar with the project say any domestic use of these satellites is barred by agreements between the CIA and DoD." Photoreconnaissance satellites that gather intelligence from space usually target hostile governments and foreign terrorists. "The domestic use of a military satellite for domestic spying is a violation of DoD and CIA regulations regarding the proper use of top-secret national security satellites," the Gazette reported.

But with the exception of a brief Associated Press recap, the story received absolutely no mainstream-media attention. No civil-liberties circus. No White House press-corps pandemonium.

The left believes the government should do whatever it takes to fight terrorists -- but only when the terrorists look like Timothy McVeigh. If you're on the MCI Friends and Family plan of Osama bin Laden and Abu Zubaydah, you're home free.

[August]

No. The Republicans run everything and they will cover for him unless like all rats they sense the ship is sinking then they will turn on him.

Peruse these executive orders and tell me what Bush has done different that what Presidents Clinton and Carter did during their administrations on this same issue (other that being a republican i mean):

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

[bradclark1]

They look the same to me with the exception that they refer to different sections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Don't know if thats a factor or not.

[bradclark1]

Found this for Carter.

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title;

This ACT looks to be directed at "foreign powers". Look at section A(ii) and section (B).

[bradclark1]

Okay. This part clears Bush I think. Or did he add this? I'm not sure.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001842----000-.html

[The Avon Lady]

Nice to see there are still some honest Dems around:
President had legal authority to OK taps (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed)

By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005


President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."

FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

----------

John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.

[bradclark1]

Read the Act.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html

[The Avon Lady]

Read the Act.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html
No thanks. I'm not a lawyer but a former associate attorney General of the US spelled it out in layman's terms in the article I posted above, don't you think? :hmm:

[bradclark1]

Actually the whole act is in laymans terms (nearly). :know:

[August]

Like i said 4 pages ago. A politically motivated tempest in a teapot.

[The Avon Lady]

Actually the whole act is in laymans terms (nearly). :know:
Then it should be easy as pie for you to disprove John Schmidt's claims. :yep:

[bradclark1]

Okay. This part clears Bush I think. Or did he add this? I'm not sure.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001842----000-.html

I'm sure. He's safe.
Didn't read your article. The Act is only a few paragraphs.

[bradclark1]

It seems the facts are starting to dribble out. NSA is doing some major data mining. Thats not covered.
Because of the times I don't think this is a bad idea however it's not covered under the law. I wonder if this is going to turn into a Monica Lewinsky? I'll LMAO if it does. Don't know why they didn't see about what it would take to legalize and quitely pass it through as a secret security measure. It would probably leak out anyway being what politics is nowadays.