Here's the thing. If they had a legitimate reason for a wiretap getting a court order would be absolutely no problem.
So why circumvent the law unless they wanted wiretaps without a legitimate reason.
Because the Fourth Amendment includes requirements for the issuance of search warrants, critics of the NSA program seem to assume that this means that all searches must be executed pursuant to a warrant. This assumption is wrong. Several circumstances exists under which the president is not obligated to obtain a warrant. There are dozens of situations where warrantless searches have been approved by the courts and, contrary to what some may claim, the courts themselves have repeatedly held that not all wiretaps require a court order. If the instances fall under the exceptions outlined by the courts, the law gives them the right to do what they did and it would not be fair to characterize events as circumventing the law.
Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement. Foreign intelligence collection undertaken to prevent further devastating attacks on our Nation serves the highest government purpose through means other than traditional law enforcement. See In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 745; United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59, 72 (2d Cir. 1984) On the domestic front for national security, the overriding principle is that searches of Americans (defined to include resident aliens) must be reasonable. Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al Qaeda or other suspected terror organizations in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable as determined by the court. Reasonableness is generally determined by "balancing the nature of the intrusion on the individual’s privacy against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." Earls, 536 U.S. at 829.
The problem is that the current government considers anybody who doesn't agree with everything the government does or says a person of suspect. Protest the war? You're a bad guy! Against current military recruiting methods? You're a bad guy! Against the government? You're a bad guy! Want peace? Bad guy!
Here is a list of people that the government is spying on. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...aseTracker.pdf
And the corresponding article. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/
I guess the question is "Can we trust the government to only use these unsupervised powers to the letter of the law. From what I've seen I'd have to say no.
Here's an example. The House yesterday insisted on shortening the extension of the Patriot Act to five weeks because James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the Judiciary chair, wants it to be permanent. While you're figuring that out, we read in the South Coast Standard-Times that a UMass Dartmouth Senior was visited by Homeland Security agents after he requested a copy of Mao's "Little Red Book" from the library. He had apparently become one of the 500 people at any one time that President Bush has authorized NSA to spy on. So we now have NSA computers sifting through inter-library loans to catch Maoists?
Recognizing that the Fourth Amendment implications of foreign intelligence surveillance are far different from ordinary wiretapping (because they are not principally used for criminal prosecution), it is not unreasonable to think these wiretaps fall under an Executive Branch war power rather than judicial power. But that doesn't mean Executive Branch power was used indiscriminately or inappropriately. Evidence is abundant that the Administration was scrupulous I guess there's a first for everything in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties. Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times.
Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have said that the administration likely did not inform them of the operation to the extent required by the National Security Act of 1947, as amended in 2001. Members of both parties have also said that the objections they did have were ignored by the administration and couldn't be aired because the program's existence was highly classified.
As The New York Times reported on December 21, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
(D-NV) have stated that they did not receive written reports from the White House on the surveillance operation, as required by the National Security
Act:
[i]The demand for written reports was added to the National Security Act of
1947 by Congress in 2001, as part of an effort to compel the executive branch to provide more specificity and clarity in its briefings about continuing activities. President Bush signed the measure into law on Dec.
28, 2001, but only after raising an objection to the new provision, with the stipulation that he would interpret it "in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority" to withhold information for national-security or foreign-policy reasons.
[...]
n interviews, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Graham and aides to Mr. Rockefeller and
Mr. Reid all said they understood that while the briefings provided by [Vice
President Dick] Cheney might have been accompanied by charts, they did not
constitute written reports. The 2001 addition to the law requires that such
reports always be in written form, and include a concise statement of facts
and explanation of an activity's significance.
Further, Rockefeller recently released a copy of a letter he wrote to Cheney
on July 17, 2003, raising objections to the secret surveillance operation.
As the Times reported on December 20, Rockefeller said on December 19 that
his concerns "were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my
views with my colleagues" because the briefings were classified. The
December 21 Times report noted that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
(D-CA) said she too sent a letter to the Bush administration objecting to
the secret surveillance operation, and that Graham alleged that he was never
informed "that the program would involve eavesdropping on American
citizens."
The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since
9/11 also knew about them.
The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.
Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.
U.S. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, expects officials from NSA and the Justice Department to explain the warrantless spying.
There are 11 Justices on the court. Doesn't sound like they all knew about the wire taps.
Inside the executive branch, the process allowing
the wiretaps was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers, by the Attorney General you mean the one who thinks that torture is good and that the Constitution is an outdated rag? personally, and with the President himself reauthorizing
the process every 45 days. In short, implications that this is a gross
erosion of civil liberties or some LBJ-J. Edgar Hoover operation designed to
skirt the law to spy on domestic political enemies is nothing less than a
political smear.
I may staunchly oppose warrantless wiretapping for criminal investigations,
but I can't think of any other way which would give our intelligence
agencies the necessary speed and flexibility in terror investigations,
especially in the case of a rapidly unfolding terrorist plot against
ourselves or our allies.
Various media outlets have uncritically relayed President Bush's claim that the administration's warrantless domestic surveillance is justified because "we must be able to act fast ... so we can prevent new [terrorist] attacks." But these reports have ignored emergency provisions in the current law governing such surveillance -- FISA -- that allow the administration to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a search warrant up to 72 hours after the government begins monitoring suspects' phone conversations. The existence of this 72-hour window debunks the argument that the administration had to bypass the law to avoid delay in obtaining a warrant. The fact that the administration never retroactively sought a warrant from the FISA court for its surveillance activities suggests that it was not the need to act quickly that prevented the administration from complying with the FISA statute, but, rather, the fear of being denied the warrant.
So we come back to the question of why is was necessary to circumvent the checks and balances system.
Those who would give up a freedom to gain a
security do, indeed, deserve neither freedom nor security. But we don't give
up a freedom by allowing NSA to look into suspect communications. We're
still free to communicate whatever we want to whomever we wish... but if
what we're communicating is instructions on how to build a dirty bomb, then
IMO it is good that NSA will pick up on it.
I agree but once again I question their motives and tactics.
So which is worse. A President lying to the American people about getting a blowjob or lying to the American people about illegally spying on them?
__________________
I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country; the least encroachment on those invaluable privileges makes my blood boil. Benjamin Franklin
A president getting a blowjob...reason...he is hurting his character.
If Bush told us everything he did before he did it, how would we catch these criminals?
That is just like the cops saying, we are going to be setting up a roadblock on Meeting St. and King St. to catch drunk drivers...do you think anyone is going to take that road home if they've been drinking? Nope....
Some of you act like the government is spying on you...is there something else we should know about you?
A president getting a blowjob...reason...he is hurting his character.
If Bush told us everything he did before he did it, how would we catch these criminals?
That is just like the cops saying, we are going to be setting up a roadblock on Meeting St. and King St. to catch drunk drivers...do you think anyone is going to take that road home if they've been drinking? Nope....
Some of you act like the government is spying on you...is there something else we should know about you?
You're missing the point. It's not the fact that he didn't tell us. It's the fact that he did it illegally and lied about it.
And if you think that the bad guys don't realize that we are going to try to listen in on their converstations then you're completely out of touch with reality.
So you don't care if your government spies on you? Great attitude.
__________________
I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country; the least encroachment on those invaluable privileges makes my blood boil. Benjamin Franklin
When charges are brought on him then I will say it was illegal...otherwise...he stand withing the legal realm of his powers...
So lying is ok so long as charges aren't brought against him?
Did you watch the video of him stating that no wire taps are taking place without a court order?
__________________
I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country; the least encroachment on those invaluable privileges makes my blood boil. Benjamin Franklin
HUGE difference between withholding information and outright lying. HUGE.
__________________
I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country; the least encroachment on those invaluable privileges makes my blood boil. Benjamin Franklin
HUGE difference between withholding information and outright lying. HUGE.
Not really, you have to answer the questions you are asked...
"Mr. President are you going to invade Iraq? No, not at this time..."-would this be a lie? Even though they were planning it, they did not reveal it and he lied. So is there a difference between the two, yes...in one people will die, in the other people will spy...which is worse...
HUGE difference between withholding information and outright lying. HUGE.
Not really, you have to answer the questions you are asked...
"Mr. President are you going to invade Iraq? No, not at this time..."-would this be a lie? Even though they were planning it, they did not reveal it and he lied. So is there a difference between the two, yes...in one people will die, in the other people will spy...which is worse...
Your analogy doesn't really make sense. Kind of like comparing apples to oranges.
The question wasn't whether we are tapping into people's conversations. The question was whether we are doing it without court orders. There was no reason to lie about that. No secrets would have been revealed if he had told the truth (except for the secret that they were doing something unconstitutional). Remember Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
The National Security Agency (NSA) has conducted much broader surveillance of e-mails and phone calls -- all without court orders -- than the Bush administration admits and intelligence experts say the spying goes far beyond just monitoring phone and email communications.
The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications say current and former government officials.
President Bush claims his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida but NSA technicians routinely comb through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic searching for patterns that might lead to terrorists.
In addition, NSA employs "data mining," a technique of comparing huge amounts of travel, financial and related information to build a pattern of behavior on American citizens.
The volume of information harvested from telecommunications data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House admits.
A former technology manager at a major telecommunications firm who, for obvious reasons, asks not to be identified, says companies have been storing information on calling patterns since the Sept. 11 attacks, and giving it to the federal government.
“We have a police state far beyond anything George Orwell imagined in his book 1984,” says privacy expert Susan Morrissey. “The everyday lives of virtually every American are under scrutiny 24-hours-a-day by the government.”
Paul Hawken, owner of the data information mining company Groxis, agrees, saying the government is spending more time watching ordinary Americans than chasing terrorists and the bad news is that they aren’t very good at it.
“It’s the Three Stooges go to data mining school,” Hawken says. “Even worse, DARPA is depending on second-rate companies to provide them with the technology, which only increases the chances for errors.”
__________________
I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country; the least encroachment on those invaluable privileges makes my blood boil. Benjamin Franklin
let's be real about this. if you want to get technical with it, his ass broke the law. there should have been warrants, but from what i've read, to expedite things like this, warrants can be obtained after the tapping has been done. either way, would any of you be trying to crucify this guy(i can't stand him either) if someone blew up golden gate, and after the fact, the fbi found a mountain of emails and correspondence between the guys who did it and their cells here and abroad, but we didn't tap their communitcations? hell yes you would. you'd be calling him every name in the book short of a traitor for not doing everything his power allowed to stop it. the guy can't win, and all of you know it. he's going to catch hell from either side. if he what he's doing has saved your city from something like what happened in ny, then he's done his job.
i know this isn't an episode of 24. i know the govt can't just do whatever the hell it wants whenever the hell it wants by law. put the damned laws aside. did laws help us when those assholes flew planes into our buildings? no. do you think they give half a shit about what our laws are? no. don't get me wrong, i don't see the flack he's catching as the media fishing for reasons to fry him. this is, on the surface, legit, but consider this...
do any of you have family members who have been a part of special ops missions or who currently work for branches of the govt like the fbi or cia? don't you know that they do illegal shit DAILY to keep us safe here? do you know that, at any given time, hundreds of operatives could probably be arrested in the countries they're in because of what they're doing. it's all for us and our interests. if you wanna live in a place where you don't know if your bus is going to explode, or a missile is going to hit your plane, move.
__________________
"i wonder if this grief would ever let me go? i feel like i am the king...king of sorrow."
to me, this is kin to the people that want to get mad at the airport when they have to go through a more extensive search. if you have nothing to hide, is it really that big of a deal? the only thing that worries me is if things like this are done for reasons that i feel are much less important than stopping terrorism. i'm only saying this is ok in this instance. i don't think the govt should have the right to do stuff like this for reasons that don't effect national security.
__________________
"i wonder if this grief would ever let me go? i feel like i am the king...king of sorrow."
Wow. Your logic is so flawed I don't even know where to begin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTROD03
let's be real about this. if you want to get technical with it, his ass broke the law.
And that is the point. He broke the law. Not just broke the law but went against the Constitution.
there should have been warrants, but from what i've read, to expedite things like this, warrants can be obtained after the tapping has been done.
Once again why completely ignore the Constitution if the means were already there?
either way, would any of you be trying to crucify this guy(i can't stand him either) if someone blew up golden gate, and after the fact, the fbi found a mountain of emails and correspondence between the guys who did it and their cells here and abroad, but we didn't tap their communitcations?
Absolutely but only if he had the legal means to do so and didn't utilise them. The thing is that we do have the legal means to do so.
hell yes you would. you'd be calling him every name in the book short of a traitor for not doing everything his power legal powerallowed to stop it. the guy can't win, and all of you know it. he's going to catch hell from either side.
Tough shit! He shouldn't have run for office if he wasn't prepared to accept the responsibilities and consequences.
if he what he's doing has saved your city from something like what happened in ny, then he's done his job.
Still doesn't excuse him from breaking the law and ignoring the Constitution.
i know this isn't an episode of 24. i know the govt can't just do whatever the hell it wants whenever the hell it wants by law. put the damned laws aside.
So which laws should he be allowed to break?
did laws help us when those assholes flew planes into our buildings? no. do you think they give half a shit about what our laws are?
So because they flew planes into a building we should just throw all of our laws out the window?
no. don't get me wrong, i don't see the flack he's catching as the media fishing for reasons to fry him. this is, on the surface, legit, but consider this...
do any of you have family members who have been a part of special ops missions or who currently work for branches of the govt like the fbi or cia? don't you know that they do illegal shit DAILY to keep us safe here? do you know that, at any given time, hundreds of operatives could probably be arrested in the countries they're in because of what they're doing. it's all for us and our interests.
We're not talking about spies here. We're talking about the CIC.
if you wanna live in a place where you don't know if your bus is going to explode, or a missile is going to hit your plane, move.
Wow. Just wow. So the countries without the laws to protect freedoms are the ones where terrorism is a common occurence. Let's think about this.
__________________
I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country; the least encroachment on those invaluable privileges makes my blood boil. Benjamin Franklin
Warrants can be obtained after the said wiretapping has occured if they were to abide by legal practices. I believe the way it was stated is that they have to acquire a warrant within 24 hours of the wiretapping, or 48-72 if it was some extreme circumstance. There was also a loophole where they could perform wiretapping without a warrant only in the situation where the president was about to declare a state of war.
Since we're already at war, that's not the case and it appears as though he just blatantly gave the OK to the parties involved to break the law. I'm sure he did it for a good reason though(unlike why he started this war in the first place, IMO).
I don't really agree with the president being given the unfettered ability to OK others to break the law.
On a side note... I also don't know why the president is allowed to pardon people. Why the hell should he be allowed to grant someone freedom for a crime that the justice system has found them guilty of? To me, this sound like a great way to encourage bribery and other unjust/unpatriotic happenings... despite the fact that the president puts himself in a situation for tremendous public scrutiny by doing so.... but if it's in his power to do so, he's unlikely to be impeached for it.
__________________ -2004.5 6MT G35 Coupe, Diamond Graphite/Graphite, Aero, Premium, Nav, Splash Guards, Aluminum Pedals, Z-Tube and K&N Air Filter, 3/8\" Motordyne Plenum Spacer -2001 Toyota Tacoma SR5 Stepside 5-Speed 4X4 with siderails, Tonneau Cover, Bed Liner, and Rain Guards -1990 Nissan 240SX SE 5-speed with some minor mods
i'm not going to copy everything you said about my post, but i did address most of the things you highlighted in previous posts. i recognize what this is, and if applied to other potential stretches of the president's power, this could be dangerous. i'm simply applying what he's doing to this particular "problem." this is our safety. this is our buildings, bridges, ports, and most importantly, our citizens. don't be so proud. sometimes rules have to be broken no matter how wrong it may seem at the time.
__________________
"i wonder if this grief would ever let me go? i feel like i am the king...king of sorrow."
