Bush said he authorized eavesdropping by NIS

[TheotherMikeG]

...and when the next suicide mission succeeds...

we will hear, just like after 9/11 that Bush knew it was coming and did nothing, or that Bush is incompetent, or that a Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal planned the attack themselves to enrich their friends.:barf: It goes on and on with no end and no common sense. Rebar got it right; there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that anyone has profited from this war, yet the "no blood for oil" crowd continues to get traction from baseless accusations.

 

[Glock 31]

Why the big uproar, we're talking about the phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists. Do they want us to just ignore blatant facts and wait for another 9/11 to blame the president that he didn't do everything in his power. It's not like their watching my emails and if they are, there's nothing there that i'm worried about.

It's the same with profiling. Profiling is illegal, if it's done simply because you think every person of the race in question is bad. Not if it's done to protect the country. I mean, if it's mainly islamic members who are trying to destroy our country, your not going to go and harrass an irish man or a black man just cause you have to be fair. You go after those make up the enemy. If a few mistakes are made along the way, it's better the few than the many.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Glock 31,

the problem is one of precedent. When you don't mind the NSA going through your emails today without warrant when they look for terrorists, you can't complain when the NSA goes through your email tomorrow when they look for assault weapon owners, members of the "wrong" religion, or people who speak up publically against President Hilary. If they can look for terrorists in your email or your phone conversations without a warrant, then they can look for anything in your email or phone conversations without a warrant, whether you agree with their criteria or not.

It's not like their watching my emails and if they are, there's nothing there that i'm worried about.

For all you know, they may have read your emails or listened in on your calls if you've ever sent an email abroad or made an international phone call since 9/11. The point is that no one but the NSA and the POTUS would know because they didn't need to get a warrant.

As for the part of having nothing to worry about because you have nothing to hide...where do you draw the line? Random searches on the street? Being required to wear see-through jackets? (And it doesn't matter where you draw the line once you concede the principle.)

If a few mistakes are made along the way, it's better the few than the many.

Except when you end up being one of the few one day, and if you ever get caught up unjustly in one of the nets cast to catch bad guys in the ever-expanding War on Drugs and War on Terror, I suspect that you'll change your tune.

 

[Glock 31]

True, true.

 

[Helmetcase]

What was done (wiretaps on internat'l calls to/from known or suspected terrorist connected numbers) was legal and congress has been informed and updated on the program repeatedly since it was initiated.

The entire congress was not aware of what was going on here, and not sure why you would think that was a defense even if it was true. Congressional members having an inkling about illegal activities is not an affirmative defense. Thanks for playing.

The program was classified and whatever staffers told reporters about it did indeed break the law.

Wrong. It's a well established precedent that whisteblowers are only on the hook for outing legal activities.

AND compromised OPSEC by alerting enemies to one of our tactics.

You mean the terrorists now know we use wiretaps? Cause geeze they never woulda figured that out on their own.

Why don't I hear clamoring for an investigation like I did about the Plame incident? Libby, by the way, was indicted for lying not for revealing classified information, since he didn't.

Because outing Plame was illegal as she was legally engaged in her duties. In this case, it appears the legality defense isn't going to help the NSA staffers. Besides, your defense of Libby is weak. Just because he's not indicted doesn't mean didn't do it. It simply is a reflection of the fact that Federal Prosecutors tend to charge only on what they know for sure they can convict on to avoid the appearance of haphazard prosecutions. They had him cold on perjury and obstruction, so no need to go after the tougher-to-prove leaking of classified info. As Fitzgerald noted, damage was indeed done, and the CIA has confirmed this. Quit spreading that disinformation propaganda you're hearing on AM radio, it's BS.

the problem is one of precedent. When you don't mind the NSA going through your emails today without warrant when they look for terrorists, you can't complain when the NSA goes through your email tomorrow when they look for assault weapon owners, members of the "wrong" religion, or people who speak up publically against President Hilary.

Goddamn right. Just because you're not the member of the targeted group today doesn't mean you won't be tomorrow. Our rights mean nothing if we don't insist that the rule of law apply to everyone, even our leaders, and also don't mean much if they don't protect the less popular members of society.

As for the part of having nothing to worry about because you have nothing to hide...where do you draw the line? Random searches on the street? Being required to wear see-through jackets? (And it doesn't matter where you draw the line once you concede the principle.)

Correct again. This protects everyone; is it that hard to imagine a time when gun owners might be a group people in govt want surveilled?

 

[BIGJACK]

Suloco2: I was not there when ole Ben made the statement but I was quoting from a piece from Associated Press by David Espo, todays paper. At any rate, matters not who said it or when it was said it is still good logic. I was not there when James Madison said the following, but he is accredited with it, "IF tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." It was true then and it is true now.

It seems to me that gwb is a bull headed egotisitic more concerned with his legacy than the welfare of this country or the world. Even after acknowledging that his decision to invade Iraq was based on faulty information and that there were no WMD, there were no labs, there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, our troops were not welcomed with open arms and insergency has not been easily defeated, he says "Knowing what I know today I would make the decision again." You gotta wonder if he would invade another country based on the same information and advise from the same nonmilitary egg heads.

Halliburton loosing money in Iraq????? Well, i seriously doubt it but could be now that they have been caught, as I understand it, several times "over charging" for services.

Also, would you please present some proof that there are officials in our own government who what this country destroyed?

 

[stevelyn]

I think he actually doing what's right for all our safety.

Excuse me while I puke. :barf: Two words: ABLE DANGER.

Everyone seems to forget that having the NSA spy on American citizens, passage of the PATRIOT Act:barf: and a whole host of other lost liberties wasn't necessary to gather information on suspected terrorists.

Able Danger was dumping truck loads of terrorist information on the desks of the FBI and CIA since Bush 41 without the need to spy on and intrude into the privacy of American cititzens.
They even had enough info to prevent the first WTC bombing. The agencies responsible FAILED TO ACT on the information given them. It wasn't a problem with the laws in place. It was a problem of priorities.

Now Marky, if you live in so much fear of terrorism that you're willing to give up your liberty for the govt's empty promise of "safety", go right ahead as it's your right to do so, but don't expect me to go along with it or buy off on such a hollow arguement.

The govt is using terror is an excuse for the govt to tighten its control on the citizenry.

 

[Waitone]

I just love all the tub thumping. Sounds profound and important. Why we can't have unwarranted surveillence taking place, can we?

Kiddies, I want everyone's attention. Put down your crayola's and look closely at the chalkboard. This crap has been going on for a long, long time. Eschelon was close cooperation amongst our allies. One benefit of which is the US doesn't have to sniff on US citizens or on US territory or whatever boundary you think important. NZ or Australia or UK does that for the benefit of the US. Information developed is routinely forwarded to those who care. What Bush has done is merely above the table and not hidden as in the past. There are stories out there of NSA taps and office bugs in the offices of members of congress. I for one am convinced wiretapping and bugging of party A by party B is rampant. There may be law against it but who cares. We have a sack full of laws against criminal immigration and what good is it. When government becomes the chief lawbreaker we are rapidly passing through the ackward period. We don't punish government for its failure to enforce laws it wrote, so what makes anyone think government will be punished for violating domestic surveillence laws (assume the law was broken, something which has yet to be demonstrated).

If you're wanting to get huffy about violations of civil rights let's get huffy about a whole list of transgressions starting with the letter B, then A, etc.

OK kiddies, pick up your crayola's and resume your work.

 

[DSS]

I don't have a problem with the government or the NSA going through my emails or listening to my phone calls. I actually wish they would sometimes. Just the nature of the business I am in has gotten some crazies contacting me. Most likely terrorists. I never respond to them.
I've got nothing to hide here. I'm totaly legal and plus I am retired military. I still hold to the oath I took 4 times. Don't the rest of you ex military do the same?

The problem here is the civilians that have no clue whatsoever what it takes to maintain a free country. The government has been doing this for a long time before bush was president. If you think otherwise you are extremely neieve.

The facts are that Clinton ruined our military and our intelligence agencies. I saw first hand the problems he created in the military. It was very bad compared to where we were when Reagan was president! Now Bush comes along and tries to get things back on a normal scale and everyone thinks he is a criminal. He is doing his job! He is supposed to protect the american people first and foremost. Have we been attacked directly since 9-11? I didn't think so.
Does anyone have proof of the government using anything gleaned from wire tapping to prosecute an american citizen who wasn't involved in terrorism?

I'd like to know if you have proof. I haven't seen any. In order to prosecute an american citizen you must follow the rules for search warrants for any of it to be admissable in court. For a foreign terrorist bent on destroying a building or a city with a nuke are we supposed to just not pay attention and let them do it? If you have problems with the way things are being done then come up with a better alternative. There aren't any that I can think of but some of you may be smarter than me so you never know.

FWIW, for anyone to give up military or government secrets durring time of war is a war crime punnishable by death. This was a government secret nobody needed to know about in my thinking. It wasn't harming us in any way. It was protecting us. The people responsible for the leak need to ba hanged.

Durring WW2 if someone had leaked the D day invasion or the location of the carrier fleet the day before the attack on Pearl or the existence of the A bomb before it was delivered would any of you have defended the leaker then? Or was that war just a government plot to take away our rights too? I have a few dead relatives who died in that warwho would argue the point with you then. I've lost freinds adn people I trained in this one too. In fact I heard the very truck I used to drive and would have been in if I hadn't retired was totaly destroyed along with all occupants in Afganistan. Is this really a made up war? I hope you people don't really think that.


This is a fight for our very survival. Not a brawl outside the local bar. This is real! I've been to the middleeast many times and seenit first hand. These people hate us and want us all dead. That includes your mothers, your daughters, your kids and you!
We are all the infedels in their minds.

Just ask yourself if a world as the muslims see it is acceptable to you.

 

[Mike40-11]

The entire congress was not aware of what was going on here, and not sure why you would think that was a defense even if it was true. Congressional members having an inkling about illegal activities is not an affirmative defense.

No they were not, but congressional leaders on both sides were. The point I am making is that this is not a case of the administration run amok with no oversight. In fact, changes have been made to the program since it was initiated, due to congressional input.

From the NYT article: "According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said."

whisteblowers are only on the hook for outing legal activities

Indeed they are, and this was a legal activity, IMO. I may be wrong, if law was cut and dried we wouldn't need lawyers. It's a fine line to walk to be sure and needs to be discussed and monitored. And it seems that it has been, within closed briefings and courts.

Because outing Plame was illegal as she was legally engaged in her duties.

Maybe. It was illegal if she was a covert officer within the last 5 years. That hasn't been shown one way or the other.

Just because he's not indicted doesn't mean didn't do it.

Gotcha, guilty until proven innocent. I'm not defending anything, he's been indicted and will be tried. Nor is Fitzgerald done yet. We'll see what happens.

the problem is one of precedent. When you don't mind the NSA going through your emails today without warrant when they look for terrorists, you can't complain when the NSA goes through your email tomorrow when they look for assault weapon owners, members of the "wrong" religion, or people who speak up publically against President Hilary.

True statement. However, I don't think this is a case of the NSA over-reaching and going through communications illegally. It appears that this was done in select, time sensitive cases. This Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has broad power to issue warrants for this sort of thing and is generally quite willing to do so. This authorization seems to cover actions that need to be taken more quickly. I'm sure we will hear more about it and we'll have a better idea of the legality then.

I'm all for the 4th amendment but that doesn't mean we can't take measured, monitored and legal steps to decrease our vulnerability. Or is that a slippery slope?

 

[BIGJACK]

OK, yall put your caryons down again, you to waitone. I keep seeing some one post that slick willie "ruined" the military. I do recal, I believe that it was in '96, his administration cut the military budget pretty strongly, but I also recall that there were many Republicans who approved that budget. However in the past 5 years, it was not slick willie that closed military bases all over the country and the world, it was not slick willie that has with drawn our "peace keeping" troops from stations all over the world to fight a war that has been proven to have been innitiated under false pretense and it was not slick willie that has proposed closing VA hospitals all over the country and reducing veterans bennefits while causing the numbers of those who need them to dramatically be increased. Don't ask me to prove it--I am a veteran and the copay on my medications has increased by 40% under the gwb administration. Further more, for you who do not know any better, the government does not provide state of the art medications for the vets who use the service, they provide the cheepest alternative. Wouldn;t it be nice if some of that money used to rebuild the infrastructure that we demolished in Iraq was used for the bennefit of our veterans.

 

[DSS]

The clinton adminstration whittled down the once massive navy we had to roughly half the size it was at the end of the Reagan administration. Some of you may argue that battleships and older aircraft carriers are relics and better off retired but I'll argue that one. Most of you don't realize the power projection of such ships. The best defense has always been having the best offense. Who's gonna send a fleet against ours knowing what it is capable of? I've seen even the russian navy back down when one of the older carriers or a battleship comes into view. Back then we had the ability to fight wars on many fronts at once if needed. We still can, just not as effectively in my opinion. I think we are now down to half the number of aircraft carriers that we had at the end of my navy career. They say the new nimits class can do it better but I've seen different. We carried less aircraft on the midway but we could launch and recover faster with 2 fewer cats and even take the ship into the action if we needed to. That class were some great ships. At least it is a museum now instead of razor blades.

Another thing, After Clinton was elected our budgets were cut bad. I remember quite a few times not being able to order critical repair parts due to budget constraints. I mean critical stuff. We had a feed pump down in my engine room for over 6 months because the money wasn't there. That limited our top speed and therefor our fighting ability. We had to run with a shaft locked for over a month near the end of the fiscal year because of a whiped bearing because no money was available till after the budget was approved. That's not good at all when you play with the russians every day.
I sure don't remember problems like that when Reagan was president.


I served on a CVB, BB, FF and a destroyer tender, all of which were decommisioned out from under me for no reason other than they were old. Still perfectly capable but old. Then I went in the army and that is another story.

I don't use my government health benefits for the reasons you stated. We have much better insurance than they provide anyway. That has changed a lot but it's been changing for the worse since the 80's. Before too long I bet there won't even be any government health care for retirees. It will just be like any other insurance program you have to pay for. The old champus program wasn't too bad and it helped a lot when we actually had military bases with hospitals to go to but most of those are gone now too. At least the ones in Memphis, Chambersburg and Lubbock where I have lived are.

 

[Eghad]

Mr. Kloos hit the nail on the head....

Like Pandora's Box once its out its impossible to get back in again. This country was founded on the basis of respect for a citizens privacy. We have laws on the books which explain what is needed by authorities to circumvent these rights in the case of illegal activities.

Does this administration feel that it can ignore the law and make its own rules? Do they have something to hide? Is that why they went around the court?

 

[Weeg]

Liberal = French for "Coward"

 

[Eghad]

So is this Democratic Candidate a Liberal=Coward ?

 

[Marky]

politicians

I just think that all of the one side hates the other thing is getting way out of hand. I mean just because the ''other side'' is in charge right now doesnt mean we should be blabbing what should be a National secret like taking captured prisoners to other countrys and things like that just to get a ''stab in '' on the other side. I always said that if Jesus H. Christ was prez. half of the people in this country would hate him.

 

[Helmetcase]

Maybe. It was illegal if she was a covert officer within the last 5 years. That hasn't been shown one way or the other.

It's likely that part of the reason that Libby wasn't indicted was that under the IIPA, the five year rule applies. That law has actually only been used to convict someone once since its inception in 1982. However, you're missing an important aspect of this--her work and her status was still considered classified information. Libby et al still could have faced trouble under the Espionage Act. It's pretty clear what her status was; not picking on you per se, just pointing out that you're misrepresenting what happened there and thus its relevance to this issue.

I sure don't remember problems like that when Reagan was president.

I respect your service to our country, but I have to tell ya the latest news flash: The Cold War has been over for about 15 years now. Military spending under Bush the first actually went down dramatically, and spending levels leveled off around those levels under Clinton. People only bag on Clinton for that, but actually the first pres to really ramp down spending was his predecessor, and frankly since the purse strings are controlled by Congress, let's lay blame there if we must. But again, I actually argue we must not--the Cold War ended, and instead of a large global bipolar power struggle we instead face a lot of localized hot spots. Times have changed, and we spend money differently. As well we should. Interesting discussion, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the NSA wiretapping case.

Gotcha, guilty until proven innocent. I'm not defending anything, he's been indicted and will be tried. Nor is Fitzgerald done yet. We'll see what happens.

I don't think he's guilty of anything until the jury says so, but it's pretty clear from Fitzgerald's work that damage was done and we know who did it. I for one am glad we have whistleblowers, they keep people honest.

This authorization seems to cover actions that need to be taken more quickly. I'm sure we will hear more about it and we'll have a better idea of the legality then.

There's not much a defense there. You can begin surveillance immediately if need be, you just need to go back later and file for the warrant. They deliberately chose not to. Time sensitivity isn't going to get anyone off the hook here. Neither is the "a few Congressmen knew about it" defense.

Liberal = French for "Coward"

Thanks for that very intelligent comment that has nothing to do with the thread at hand. We're discussing the govt abusing powers against citizenry. The kiddie pool is over there if you're having trouble chewing gum and thinking at the same time.

 

[Mike40-11]

There's not much a defense there. You can begin surveillance immediately if need be, you just need to go back later and file for the warrant. They deliberately chose not to. Time sensitivity isn't going to get anyone off the hook here. Neither is the "a few Congressmen knew about it" defense.

If this was such an abomination, why did senate democrats such as Rockafeller, no great buddy of Bush and who was informed, not have anything to say about it?

Time sensitivity is not a defense, it's a guess at why it was done this way. You are correct though, surveillance can be conducted without a warrant for 72 hours. This was initiated in the aftermath of 9/11 when a fair amount of suspect phone numbers were discoverd and they wanted to follow up quickly. It is possible that it's utility and necessity have now decreased.

Again, we are not talking about domestic communication here but terrorism related international communication. Having dug through the USC and some of the case law, I have yet to see convincing evidence that this was illegal.

 

[Rob P.]

OK, lets get this back on track....

First, Clinton did what he did and SO WHAT! Whatever that was, it wasn't ordering warrantless wiretaps (or if he did no one knows about it).

Second, Plame, Libby, et all aren't the subject of discussion. Unless someone can connect them TO the wiretaps.

Third, neither is the destruction of the military by anyone NOR is the issue about anyone wanting to destroy the U.S.

Fourth, since WHEN did "liberal" equate to either coward or the subject of this thread? And even if it did, what discussion value is there in saying so and not elaborating on your opinion.

So, now that we're all on the same page again (at least I hope so) exactly HOW does Congress being "in the know" (my words) about the warrantless wiretaps vitiate the 4th amendment? Last time I checked, the 4th amendment applied to Congress too.

And I just LOVE this one:

Does anyone have proof of the government using anything gleaned from wire tapping to prosecute an american citizen who wasn't involved in terrorism?

I'd like to know if you have proof. I haven't seen any. In order to prosecute an american citizen you must follow the rules for search warrants for any of it to be admissable in court.

Lets get real here, shall we? The warrantless wiretaps ARE against American citizens. The fact that the subjects of those wiretaps are "suspected terrorists" doesn't absolve the gov't from following and adhereing to the law. They MUST HAVE a warrant or judicial oversight in order to have the wiretaps. They don't.

So, now the question is WHAT do they do with the information they get? So far we've been told that several "threats" to the U.S. have been "neutralized". What does that mean? And who was "neutralized"? An American Citizen? Who knows because the information is classified and no information is being given.

As for using illegal means to prosecute Americans, aren't they doing that with a couple of Americans suspected and alleged to be terrorists ALREADY? Held without bail, no access to the courts to protest their incarceration, no speedy trial, only recently granted access to an attorney, and the DOJ is STILL not giving them full access to critical information crucial to their defense.

And finally, doesn't anyone remember those famous words: "The provisions of this Act will never be used against American citizens"?

 

[gfen]

In order to prosecute an american citizen you must follow the rules for search warrants for any of it to be admissable in court.

Ask Mr. Padilla about that one...

Anyways, the policy defenders on this board should chew this over for thought: What would happen if President Hillary R. Clinton decided she wanted to use these same tactics to learn about "domestic terrorist groups." Y'know, like people who like to have "arsenals" of firearms and "stockpile" ammunition.

After all, all these possible terrorists, I mean.. putting them away.. its for the children.