honestly, this is conservative texas vs seemingly liberal california going back and forth in here. we're not going to agree. i do, however, respect your opinions.
ryno, also, try not to twist my words, and try not to use absolutes like "all." that's how things get misinterpreted and stories change. what's your favorite cable news channel? i'm just curious.
__________________
"they say beauty's in the eye of the beholder. that's why i look in the mirror every mornin and realize how fly i am..."
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!
Of course law enforcement agencies will need to gather intelligence on domestic "potential Bad guy" elements. They do it to drug dealers, mob bosses, militia men, and gang lords. It's neither new nor controversial. And of course these activities will be turned on potential terrorist groups, and even ratcheted up post-9/11. Statistics have shown certain demographics have a higher probability of producing subversive terrorist activity. The government has a responsibility to protect us from them. And of course timeliness is an issue and the President may need to authorize wiretaps before a judge can be summoned to rule on the case. I suspect the real issue here isn't the espionage, it's in subsequent use of any retained info. I think your next comment sums it up, i.e., it's not that any database exists, but rather how it's used.
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?
Tsk. That story was retracted DAYS AGO as a complete fabrication. (http://newsbusters.org/node/3357) You know, I can't count the number of times people think because you either agree with something this administration does/did that you support everything Bush and must be some stupid, blind right-wing conservative. Well, I gotta tell ya, it appears the Liberal Left has their own fair share of lemmings. It has been my observation that Bush haters take waaay too much out of the liberal leaning press as gospel and run with it immediately without the slightest bit of credible evidence.
IMO, this 'news' had a bad smell from day one, it just sounded so fantastical. To those 'outraged' by the idea that the government was asserting the right -or the power- to inquire into what a student or member of a university community was reading, your 'sky is falling' civil liberty shrill is a lot of B.S., IMHO. Just the fact that when you hit the UMass-Dartmouth online catalog, you get nineteen different matches for books on or by Mao (some of which contain most of what's found in the Little Red Book) says it all. Of course, you can also get the actual volume itself for less than ten bucks at Barnes and Noble ($9.95, or $8.95 with your Evil Capitalist Discount Card). Now, if my government ever tries to take that away, you'll be in good company.
Re: Patriot Act: The 'revelations' concerning the NSA operations have been used as an excuse to delay or block renewal of the counterterrorism surveillance and investigatory powers in the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of this year. Forcing a quick compromise on the remaining two sunsetting provisions in question hopefully will get Congress off their butts and not allow an extended delay.
To kill the entire Act reauthorization (as Harry Reid boasted) is a mistake, potentially dangerous, and likely counterproductive to protecting civil liberties. Balancing the need to protect Americans from terrorists with the preservation of civil liberties is a serious issue abd healthy debate is critical to a free society. But the Patriot Act has had its day in court. For four years legislators, legal scholars, and national security experts have thoroughly debated ever Patriot-related issue with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, the 9/11 Commission, and attorneys general past and present agreeing that the Patriot Act is a necessary tool in the fight against terrorism. The remaining question is which version of the law, the Senate’s or the House’s, better balances civil liberties with security.
Since its inception three years ago, there have been no substantiated abuses of the powers granted under the Patriot Act. Arguing that legal and effective counterterrorism tools—tools that offer an alternative to the NSA program in some cases—should be suspended simply makes no sense. Congress should act without further delay and reauthorize the expiring provisions in the Patriot Act.
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 purpose and general outline of the program is not subject to serious dispute. No one claims that the NSA is intercepting domestic communications that begin and end in the United States, even if they do involve potential agents of a hostile foreign power. Only international communications are targeted. The President has stated that “the government must have information that establishes a clear link to [al Qaeda or other] terrorist networks” before interceptions are made. The President also has said that the program is reviewed approximately every 45 days by senior legal officials in several executive agencies and the White House.
There is no reason to doubt these statements or that congressional leaders were briefed many times on these operations. Indeed, congressional leaders from both parties, including members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, have confirmed that they received frequent briefings and exercised regular oversight of the program. Moreover, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) has said that senior administration officials often asked him whether he needed more information to evaluate the program.
Americans want programs that aggressively fight terrorism and protect liberties. Congress and the Administration have a responsibility to meet these demands. Congress’s intelligence committees should continue to exercise oversight over the NSA’s activities and undertake what investigations they feel are necessary to ensure that the program is carried out in a way that efficiently and effectively protects Americans while safeguarding their liberties. This is Congress’s duty, and by all appearances, it is one that Congress has taken and will continue to take seriously.
HOWEVER, leaking the existence of the NSA program to the news media was wrong on many levels. If government employees suspect that government action is improper, there are appropriate ways to raise the issue- through the normal chain of command, through agency general counsel, and through confidential communications to the relevant inspectors general- that do not endanger national security. Moreover, there are whistleblower laws to protect people who have the courage of their convictions and expose suspected wrongdoing.
Anonymous leaks to the news media damage U.S. counterterrorism efforts, alert our wartime enemies of our methods of intelligence gathering, and put ongoing investigations at risk. To defend such leaks as furthering the separation of powers is even more preposterous. The leakers knew that congressional leaders had been briefed many times on the program and that members of Congress’s intelligence committees were conducting oversight. (At least one early oversight letter was also leaked.) Apparently, the leakers were dissatisfied with the job Congress was doing or had some other motive for going public. Leaking classified material to the press threatens national security. It is a crime and should be punished... where's the outrage on this?!
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.
I'm sorry, but everybody hiding under the veil of ignorance is simply not feasible. The real issue is not whether the NSA program is legal, but whether it is prudent given the authorities granted under the Patriot Act and the potential resort to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Absent all the facts, however, it is impossible to say whether the Administration could have obtained the same information through the FISA process and whether each and every intercept was appropriate. However, it is not in the nation’s best interest for there to be a public debate on the methods, identity, or content of such intercepts. Instead, the appropriate committees of Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence) should continue to review such information to determine whether the program is effective and prudent and whether further legislation is warranted.
In defense of the NSA program, the Administration has argued that resort to the FISA court would be unduly burdensome and that Congress’s Authorization for the Use of Force expanded the president’s constitutional power to authorize NSA intercepts. The first proposition is an empirical question properly left for further review, but the legal point has some force, as the Supreme Court recognized in its Hamdi decision. If Congress’s Use of Force resolution means anything, it clearly authorized the president to use such constitutional powers as he possesses during wartime to protect against attacks by al Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations. Since the Revolutionary War, intercepting communications between our enemies abroad and their potential agents in this country has been a vital part of protecting our national security.
The resolution undeniably augments the president’s inherent constitutional power and authorizes him to undertake various activities that are not specifically spelled out in the resolution. That does not resolve all the legal issues, but the mere existence and availability of the FISA court is not dispositive, either. It is well settled that the president has inherent constitutional authority to engage in foreign intelligence gathering that is not limited by FISA or reviewed by any court. Every president since FISA was enacted in 1978 has taken that position, and the courts have upheld it. There are legitimate questions about whether the President has used such powers wisely and whether Congress should propose new laws on the subject. These are questions of policy and prudence, not of law.
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.
Pundits and politicians pass judgment on the President’s actions ALL THE TIME. Many of their comments are irresponsible and inappropriate. Not enough is known by those who are commenting publicly to justify their factual conclusions, and several of their legal conclusions are demonstrably false. The president has broad constitutional and statutory powers to protect Americans in a time of war. Incontrovertable. And no evidence has been presented that the NSA did anything illegal. To the contrary, the president has clear legal authority to engage in intelligence interceptions abroad without court approval. Because the program under which these interceptions were made is highly classified, only a classified review by the appropriate congressional committees -a review with appropriate safeguards for national security and the full disclosure of all relevant documents and briefings by the Administration- will provide the necessary checks and balances envisioned in the Constitution. Not some half-assed attempt by media mouths who simply choose to interpret the events according to their own desire or have a deeper agenda.
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 ommunicating 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?
The former IMO. Because we know for fact the stain on the dress is real.
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.
1. Why is it a big deal that GW granted spy powers over the US? - It was done specifically to bypass the judicial branch of government... there is a special court which can grant these powers... but they chose not to be bothered with a trivial thing such as evidence... there are some very specific laws against spying against US citizens, and the penalties are quite severe...
something to consider: this would a big deal, but not as much of a big deal if it were considered alone... but when considered with the false war intelligence , lack of accountability in the aftermath, ineffective post-war planning, single source contract illegalities, the almost forgotten and neglected effort to get Osama (If the troops in Iraq were at Tora Bora, he WOULD NOT still be at large).. along with efforts to ignore the problems with torture (Why not pass McCain's law as he originally submitted it... not the watered down version) and other shortcomings at home (Katrina for example - although the blame there must be shared with the local and state governments that were affected).. this type of incompetence and disregard for the law is dangerous... both to our freedoms and quality of life as well as to our image in the world
personally.. If in 2001-2002 we would have deployed the same amount of force as we did in Iraq to Afghanistan, and had taken Osama out of the picture, although it wouldnt have eliminated the threat of terrorism, people may give dude some more leeway... especially considering the way that Iraq created such a negative image of our country.. as someone who was in northern VA on 9/11 and was directly affected by it, I dont buy the argument of we dont have to capture Osama..
So back to the issue of spying on US citizens.. if its warranted, I wouldnt have a problem with it, but lol neither would the court system... I mean the FBI is here.. theyre equipped to investigate US citizen who are involved in suspicious activities... so why not employ this expertise... only plausible explanation: dont want to get caught up in red tape - the legal process... if the legal process is the problem.. why not present it to the people and congress and have the laws changed... because its not warranted.. period..
Benjamin Franklin - "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
We are a country based on the rule of law... or at least we used to be.
__________________
__________________________________________
2004 G35 Coupe 5AT
1 Alpine MRD-M605
2 x Alpine Type R 1042D
for the record, i'm ONLY in support of this if the people being tapped have proven terrorist ties. that, in my opinion is "prevenative maintenance." otherwise, tapping anyone for any reason, without a warrant, should be punished.
p.s have you seen our gubenatorial candidate kinky? funny, huh
__________________
"they say beauty's in the eye of the beholder. that's why i look in the mirror every mornin and realize how fly i am..."
1. Why is it a big deal that GW granted spy powers over the US? - It was done specifically to bypass the judicial branch of government... there is a special court which can grant these powers... but they chose not to be bothered with a trivial thing such as evidence... there are some very specific laws against spying against US citizens, and the penalties are quite severe...
something to consider: this would a big deal, but not as much of a big deal if it were considered alone... but when considered with the false war intelligence , lack of accountability in the aftermath, ineffective post-war planning, single source contract illegalities, the almost forgotten and neglected effort to get Osama (If the troops in Iraq were at Tora Bora, he WOULD NOT still be at large).. along with efforts to ignore the problems with torture (Why not pass McCain's law as he originally submitted it... not the watered down version) and other shortcomings at home (Katrina for example - although the blame there must be shared with the local and state governments that were affected).. this type of incompetence and disregard for the law is dangerous... both to our freedoms and quality of life as well as to our image in the world
personally.. If in 2001-2002 we would have deployed the same amount of force as we did in Iraq to Afghanistan, and had taken Osama out of the picture, although it wouldnt have eliminated the threat of terrorism, people may give dude some more leeway... especially considering the way that Iraq created such a negative image of our country.. as someone who was in northern VA on 9/11 and was directly affected by it, I dont buy the argument of we dont have to capture Osama..
So back to the issue of spying on US citizens.. if its warranted, I wouldnt have a problem with it, but lol neither would the court system... I mean the FBI is here.. theyre equipped to investigate US citizen who are involved in suspicious activities... so why not employ this expertise... only plausible explanation: dont want to get caught up in red tape - the legal process... if the legal process is the problem.. why not present it to the people and congress and have the laws changed... because its not warranted.. period..
Benjamin Franklin - "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
We are a country based on the rule of law... or at least we used to be.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Edit: I was ready to break out that BF quote but then realized it was time to go home from work.
__________________
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
for the record, i'm ONLY in support of this if the people being tapped have proven terrorist ties. that, in my opinion is "prevenative maintenance." otherwise, tapping anyone for any reason, without a warrant, should be punished.
p.s have you seen our gubenatorial candidate kinky? funny, huh
We are disagreeing to agree I think.
I am neither a democrat or a repubilcan. I feel both parties have excellent base values. Unfortunately neither party seems to adhere to them.
As for where I get my news. I don't relly have a single place. CNN is convenient because it's on 24-7. As is MSNBC. The major networks when they broadcast news. I steer away from Faux news. I try not to rely on one or even a few sources.
__________________
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
__________________
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
AutoForums.com is the premier network of enthusiast-owned
enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
We operate more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share
experiences and opinions as a community.
