Gonzales on the hotseat right now...
- Thread starter FirstFreedom
- Start date
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
It is still necessary to obtain a warrant for domestic wiretaps, even under the expansive powers claimed by this administration. If you were getting important intelligence - or even just moderately useful intelligence - off of those other 4,990 people, would you not pursue it?
Likewise ez45's contention was that only people talking to known terrorists were being monitored. If we accept this as fact, then ~4,990 people were contacted by KNOWN terrorists, had their conversations monitored, and we never made any attempt to pursue domestic warrants to investigate what they might have in their house, computer files, or even to check their domestic calls to see if they were acting as a control for a cell. Doesn't it strike you as passing strange that we would say "Sure they are talking to known terrorists; but we didn't get any intel out of that conversation so we might as well not do anything about it"?
Heck look at it from the terrorist's perspective, how do you not call up 4,990 people living the land of your hated enemy and not say anything that draws attention to them? If bin-Laden called me tomorrow and pulled the old "Is your refrigerator running?" gag on me to pass the time in his mountain cave, do you think someone would come to talk to me about it?
Perhaps you are confused about the difference between a computer scanning and human eavesdropping? What is going on here is computerized scanning looking at huge amounts of data. As far as the 4990, the data mining function of the computer scanning obviously didn't find key word phrases that would initiate the human function of actually listening to the conversations.
You must realize that there are also unknowns here in the United States that communicate with known and suspected terrorists abroad.
Darn good thing the machine alerted the humans to look at that particular data more closely.
The computers being used are looking for Jihad phrases and are not comprehending your conversations anymore than your calculator knows the reason you are multiplying numbers on it.
We need to rethink what the Church committee did in the 70s because computerized surveillance is not the same thing as a human wiretapping a phone.
What freedoms do we all lose? The freedom to plot an attack against innocent civilians by calling a Jihadist in Iraq?? The freedom to place a call to a terrorist in Yemen and not have a computer scan for Jihad key words?
The FISA laws need to be brought up to date. They are not ammendments to our constitution.
My mistake on the computer, I had previously read that a Fisa warrant to search Moussaoui's effects had been denied on August 28th of that year.
But you are mistaken that they never searched his computer. The warrant was issued on Sept. 11
:http://foi.missouri.edu/whistleblowing/moussaouimemo.html
Quote :
Ultimately, FBI officials did get a warrant to search Moussaoui's computer on Sept. 11, using the same information initially rejected by FBI lawyers and supervisors as being insufficient in showing probable cause, Rowley said. They found a flight simulation program and information about crop-dusters and other suspicious material.
The Washington Post isn't the most credible source to an old time conservative with realistic Libertarian leanings like myself
You can argue the point all you want to and Bush will prevail and more of the the terrorists that want to kill us and destroy our Constitutional government will be stopped!
ez45
You must realize that there are also unknowns here in the United States that communicate with known and suspected terrorists abroad.
Darn good thing the machine alerted the humans to look at that particular data more closely.
The computers being used are looking for Jihad phrases and are not comprehending your conversations anymore than your calculator knows the reason you are multiplying numbers on it.
We need to rethink what the Church committee did in the 70s because computerized surveillance is not the same thing as a human wiretapping a phone.
What freedoms do we all lose? The freedom to plot an attack against innocent civilians by calling a Jihadist in Iraq?? The freedom to place a call to a terrorist in Yemen and not have a computer scan for Jihad key words?
The FISA laws need to be brought up to date. They are not ammendments to our constitution.
My mistake on the computer, I had previously read that a Fisa warrant to search Moussaoui's effects had been denied on August 28th of that year.
But you are mistaken that they never searched his computer. The warrant was issued on Sept. 11
:http://foi.missouri.edu/whistleblowing/moussaouimemo.html
Quote :
Ultimately, FBI officials did get a warrant to search Moussaoui's computer on Sept. 11, using the same information initially rejected by FBI lawyers and supervisors as being insufficient in showing probable cause, Rowley said. They found a flight simulation program and information about crop-dusters and other suspicious material.
The Washington Post isn't the most credible source to an old time conservative with realistic Libertarian leanings like myself
You can argue the point all you want to and Bush will prevail and more of the the terrorists that want to kill us and destroy our Constitutional government will be stopped!
ez45
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
So earlier when you assured me that only Americans who were talking with known terrorists were being listened to, you were mistaken? Instead any Americans talking to foreigners whose phone calls were flagged by this automated process were listened to and we don't have much idea of how many of those were actual related to terrorism beyond the fact that only ~10 domestic warrants a year were sought?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " Ring any bells?
I am all for updating the laws if that is what is necessary. The President did not do that here. He purposedy bypassed the FISA courts and never informed Congress beyond a few select members. Saying the laws need to be changed and changing them is one thing. Saying the laws need to be changed and then ignoring them is another.
Well we're both right. The warrant WAS denied on August 28; but it was denied by the FBI in Washington, not by the FISA court. As you noted in your quote, the FBI did eventually go to the FISA court with the same information and got a warrant immediately on Sept. 11 (which kind of undercuts your original argument I would point out).
Look, I realize you are relatively new here so maybe you should search my past posts. I am not exactly known for being a Bush-basher; but he deserves to be bashed here. What he is doing is an enormously dangerous precedent even if his current motives are snow-white.
I didn't respond to the silly rhetoric for obvious reasons. I trust there were no points there you feel were critical to my understanding your post?
No, the ones being listened to had actually used keyword phrases that prompted a human to listen.
The mistake I made was assuming that you actually knew what was going on with the computerized data mining. This must be the first time you've heard about this! You failed to mention it in any previous posts in this thread.
I have no interest in searching your past posts. I am assuming they will contain the same idealistic rhetoric you have used here.
When we are at war we are not in an ideal situation.
You are still secure with the 4th ammendment. If you call an Arab country or send an Email to one a computer will scan and no one will listen until you use a jihad word LOL.
Read up a little on Supreme Court rulings about police searches in vehicles etc. and the 4th amendment. It's a real eye opener. The Supreme Court evaluates the actual damage done to the rights in question.
I choose to give Bush a free pass to use computerized scanning against the terrorist threat.
Being new here has nothing to do with anything. Are you such a prominent member that shouldn't be debated over misguided opinions?? Gee, maybe you're a real heavy hitter?
I was a member here for several years before the site shut down. I choose not to wear it on my sleeve
I don't post often because there are so many members already making the same point.
I visit here and mostly read for the fun of it and when I choose to join a debate, its for the same reason.
I probably bash Bush more than you do on a daily basis. I don't care for socialists of any stripe and the same goes for unrealistic Libertarians. But when it comes to national security, I give Bush a pass considering the real circumstances involved. No ones rights are being severely trampled here if any at all.
If you choose to ignore what led up to all this and call posts silly rhetoric it's no skin off my nose.
The democrats are using this for political advantage and some are carrying their water for them. Stalin said something about useful citizens one time, didn't he?
ez45
The mistake I made was assuming that you actually knew what was going on with the computerized data mining. This must be the first time you've heard about this! You failed to mention it in any previous posts in this thread.
I have no interest in searching your past posts. I am assuming they will contain the same idealistic rhetoric you have used here.
When we are at war we are not in an ideal situation.
You are still secure with the 4th ammendment. If you call an Arab country or send an Email to one a computer will scan and no one will listen until you use a jihad word LOL.
Read up a little on Supreme Court rulings about police searches in vehicles etc. and the 4th amendment. It's a real eye opener. The Supreme Court evaluates the actual damage done to the rights in question.
I choose to give Bush a free pass to use computerized scanning against the terrorist threat.
Being new here has nothing to do with anything. Are you such a prominent member that shouldn't be debated over misguided opinions?? Gee, maybe you're a real heavy hitter?
I was a member here for several years before the site shut down. I choose not to wear it on my sleeve
I don't post often because there are so many members already making the same point.I visit here and mostly read for the fun of it and when I choose to join a debate, its for the same reason.
I probably bash Bush more than you do on a daily basis. I don't care for socialists of any stripe and the same goes for unrealistic Libertarians. But when it comes to national security, I give Bush a pass considering the real circumstances involved. No ones rights are being severely trampled here if any at all.
If you choose to ignore what led up to all this and call posts silly rhetoric it's no skin off my nose.
The democrats are using this for political advantage and some are carrying their water for them. Stalin said something about useful citizens one time, didn't he?
ez45
loggerhead
Moderator
I saw a video clip the other day, and I am sure that most of you also saw it, of gwb stating in 2004 that "warrents must be obtained before wire tapping" and this was, what, 3 years after he had authorized un-warrented wire taps.
Watched a replay of the 2/6/2006 Gonzales hearing and it amazes me as to the forgetfullness of GWBs' appointees. Criminal justice 101 says "hedging the answer, dropping eye contact and talking around the question" are grounds for being suspicious of lying.
Watched a replay of the 2/6/2006 Gonzales hearing and it amazes me as to the forgetfullness of GWBs' appointees. Criminal justice 101 says "hedging the answer, dropping eye contact and talking around the question" are grounds for being suspicious of lying.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
No, re-read the Washington Post story. It is stating that 5,000 people were selected by the automated process to be listened to by human beings and of those ~10 per year were singled out for warrants allowing domestic surveillance.
Good thing voice recognition is such reliable technology eh? Otherwise we would have to worry that people who hadn't even used such phrases might be subject to surveillance based on a computer error.
Of course the Democrats are using this for political advantage. That is what an opposition party does; particularly when the majority party does something stupid that gives them a chance to seek an advantage. However the fact that the Democrats are using it to score points does not mean that it isn't a valid concern. Note that more than a few Republicans have expressed unease with the program and the likely source of the original NYT story is Republican Jay Rockefeller.
I'm happy that you aren't the least bit disconcerted about allowing this President and future Presidents the sole power to:
A) determine who is subject to wiretapping
B) determine whether such wiretapping is legal
C) determine whether such wiretapping is being abused
I am not comfortable with that and I doubt I ever will be. I will use my voice in the democratic process to oppose any efforts to carry out that policy regardless if it is Democrats, Republicans or Libertarians trying to implement it.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Comparisons to FDR completely invalid. We WERE at war then. Congress declared it. We are most assuredly NOT at war now, despite the lies spewed by the administration, and parroted by the brainless media. Because if we were, it would be a state of perpetual war, since 'terror' will never be gone. A perpetual war cannot be - we're not Oceania. Even if it could, it would have to be declared by Congress, and it's not. And the War Powers Act (a piece of legislation) cannot trump the 4th amendment to U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
Read up on the first war powers act. It was passed on Dec 18, 1941
No it's not the same ones passed to prosecute todays enemy. By prosecute I mean to kill them by bringing the war to their front door.
We have a major problem with the FISA courts. The courts are made up of secret federal judges as they should be. Haven't these secret judges taken to making public statements? Sounds kind of like liberal judicial activists.
Bush's biggest mistake concerning the war on terror was leaving Clinton beaurocrats making major decisions for the FBI.
Despite the failure of some to realize we are really at war, we really are
like it or not
Try alternative sources for information Bart, the Post only doles out enough information to feed the reactionaries when they have to.
ez45
No it's not the same ones passed to prosecute todays enemy. By prosecute I mean to kill them by bringing the war to their front door.
We have a major problem with the FISA courts. The courts are made up of secret federal judges as they should be. Haven't these secret judges taken to making public statements? Sounds kind of like liberal judicial activists.
Bush's biggest mistake concerning the war on terror was leaving Clinton beaurocrats making major decisions for the FBI.
Despite the failure of some to realize we are really at war, we really are
like it or not
Try alternative sources for information Bart, the Post only doles out enough information to feed the reactionaries when they have to.
ez45
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
I have given you the reports from Congress on the matter, a declassified USSID 18 from the NSA, the EPIC archive on FISA and a variety of other sources. I can tell you haven't been reading them though.
Let me explain why we don't have to rely on the Washington Post. You see, USSID 18 already gives the NSA authority to listen to Americans communicating with agents of a foreign power without a warrant from a FISA court. (See Section 4.1(b)(2)). Further, under section 4.1(d)(2)(a), the Director of NSA can authorize collection on Americans if he finds probable cause they are engaged in terrorist activities. He can do this without consulting either FISA or the Attorney General in an emergency. This is as of 1993 and is based on the original authority creating NSA. That authority is delegated by Congress and supported by judicial precedent.
If the NSA had probable cause to believe they were listening to people engaged in international terrorist activities, they already have authority to listen without seeking a warrant from FISA. So why all the uproar here? In fact, why did the President even feel it necessary to approach Congress in 2004 and ask to amend FISA again if he already had the authority he needed to execute a program that listened only to Americans communicating with KNOWN terrorists?
Well, they would have let you know that my past military experience is with Naval Security Group. Here is their mission statement:
"NSGC assists appropriate commands and offices of the Department of the Navy in the preparation of plans, programs, and budgets in support of cryptologic operations; acts as Executive Agent for the Department of the Navy and coordinates with the NSA and other Department of Defense and national agencies on cryptology matters; reviews and appraises the implementation of approved cryptologies plans and programs."
Mouse in your pocket?
should say I as an American have decided to give up something. If you feel that way send a letter to the President telling him you have decided to waive your Fourth Amendment rights during wartime. I am not waiving anything.
Only an individual may waive those rights, nobody else can do it for him.
NSA only has the right to listen if they have probable cause. If a warrant in never obtained those conversations probabaly will not be admitted as evidence in a trial.
The FISA judges are speaking out about the consitutionality of what President Bush is doing and the concern that some of this information may have led to tainted warrants. They have serious concerns about the program along with Republican and Democratic lawmakewrs in Congress.
As a public officials if they have concerns about rights being violated they have a duty to speak out.
Eghad, it was my understanding that FISA judges weren't supposed to be compromising national security by making these matters public and neither should Reisin the reporter.
Bart, You ceratinly have a great background and I should apologise for confusing you with liberal leftists that don't know the difference between a wiretap with a pair of alligator clips and casting an electronic net to capture microwave communications etc. from the airwaves. The democrats that are using this for political gain would allow damage to our security for the sole purpose of discrediting the president. These are the same guys that want to destroy the second ammendment. I don't care for that either but what is done is done and that's the reality.
We will still have to remain in disagreement on this issue. The sole purpose of my posting of Roosevelt's executive order was to provide an example of how far we have gone in the past in the name of national security which includes censorship and surveillance of all communications.
I don't recall you in particular making your case using the the 4th but I will address that here. When it comes to the 4th ammendment it protects against unreasonable searches. I believe this mechanical scanning is as reasonable as my luggage being searched without a warrant when I re enter this country.
I look at the mass scanning of communications with arab countries the same way I look at police roadblocks looking for drunk drivers. They have no probable cause but the Supreme Court allows it as long as all the inconvenienced drivers get the same treatment. I don't particularly care for it but it is the reality.
The democrats won't protest the continuation of the program too much longer and the interest will die down soon.
Bush has made some blunders in this area that could have been avoided by obtaining a formal declaration of war. The politicians that brought about our involvement in Korea didn't have a declaration either and both houses of congress were still loaded with members of both parties that had declared war during WW2.
I wouldn't worry too much about president misusing their powers and using this system against the ordinary citizen looking for criminal activities. As long as we have lawyers it will always be inadmissable as evidence. As an example, our current president hasn't used the IRS or other agencies to punish his political opponents or common citizens that spoke out against him as Clinton did.
The program will continue.
It's been fun
I'll check back in a few days as work and family obligations allow to read your follow up comments.
ez45
Bart, You ceratinly have a great background and I should apologise for confusing you with liberal leftists that don't know the difference between a wiretap with a pair of alligator clips and casting an electronic net to capture microwave communications etc. from the airwaves. The democrats that are using this for political gain would allow damage to our security for the sole purpose of discrediting the president. These are the same guys that want to destroy the second ammendment. I don't care for that either but what is done is done and that's the reality.
We will still have to remain in disagreement on this issue. The sole purpose of my posting of Roosevelt's executive order was to provide an example of how far we have gone in the past in the name of national security which includes censorship and surveillance of all communications.
I don't recall you in particular making your case using the the 4th but I will address that here. When it comes to the 4th ammendment it protects against unreasonable searches. I believe this mechanical scanning is as reasonable as my luggage being searched without a warrant when I re enter this country.
I look at the mass scanning of communications with arab countries the same way I look at police roadblocks looking for drunk drivers. They have no probable cause but the Supreme Court allows it as long as all the inconvenienced drivers get the same treatment. I don't particularly care for it but it is the reality.
The democrats won't protest the continuation of the program too much longer and the interest will die down soon.
Bush has made some blunders in this area that could have been avoided by obtaining a formal declaration of war. The politicians that brought about our involvement in Korea didn't have a declaration either and both houses of congress were still loaded with members of both parties that had declared war during WW2.
I wouldn't worry too much about president misusing their powers and using this system against the ordinary citizen looking for criminal activities. As long as we have lawyers it will always be inadmissable as evidence. As an example, our current president hasn't used the IRS or other agencies to punish his political opponents or common citizens that spoke out against him as Clinton did.
The program will continue.
It's been fun
I'll check back in a few days as work and family obligations allow to read your follow up comments.
ez45
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
The important difference is Roosevelt didn't go there by himself. He had the support of both Congress and the Courts. Roosevelt never claimed sole authority to implement a program and decide the legality of it - and considering that FDR didn't balk at extending Presidential power any chance he got, I'd say that using Roosevelt as a comparison isn't going to be kind to Bush in the long run.
How is the ordinary citizen involved in criminal activities different from the ordinary terrorist involved in criminal activities? Are you suggesting a child molester deserves certain protections that a terrorist doesn't? Putting aside for a moment that criminal evidence gathered under a FISA warrant is admissible in court, even if it has nothing to do with foreign intelligence, let's ask how this would work in a practical sense?
You say that warrantless surveillance wouldn't be used in criminal trials because it would be inadmissible. So what happens when we discover really good intel on terrorists with this program? Say we discover that someone in the United States has a radiological device. If the evidence is inadmissible, we can't use it to obtain a warrant to arrest the person or search the premises. Are we left with sending Jack Bauer to stake the place out and hope for the best as our only solution? I sure hope not; because this is a bad solution from both our points of view. I still lose my privacy; but we don't gain much of an edge against the terrorists.
Bart, you still don't get my reference to Roosevelt's order. I'll boil it down a little more the point I'm making. It shows how far civil liberties have been restricted in order to win against our enemies in the past and how unwilling the public is today when a state of war exists. Today if you are phoning an arab country, like it or not this is a suspicious activity and I would have no problem accepting these communication intercepts being done under probable cause.
The terrorists are in no way similar to common criminals. They are non uniformed enemy combatants. These terrorists plainly fall into the catagory set forth below that are called entities. Check out the language used in the document below that allows the president to make certain determinations himself. we are at war with whomever the president dtermines we are.
Pay attention to the phrase : "a state of war exists between the United States of America and any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks against the United States on September 11 , 2001."
This is why the democrats are now retreating with their tails between their legs. It's also why there was no way to legally stop Bush from going into Iraq. It was undeniable that Iraq harbored terrorists and yes even al qaeda.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (Introduced in the House)
HJ 63 IH
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 63
Declaring that a state of war exists between the United States and any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks against the United States on September 11 , 2001, and authorizing the President to use United States Armed Forces and all other necessary resources of the United States Government against any such entity in order to bring the conflict to a successful termination.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 13, 2001
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. GILMAN, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT RESOLUTION
Declaring that a state of war exists between the United States and any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks against the United States on September 11 , 2001, and authorizing the President to use United States Armed Forces and all other necessary resources of the United States Government against any such entity in order to bring the conflict to a successful termination.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) On September 11 , 2001, terrorists hijacked and destroyed 4 civilian aircraft, crashing 2 of them into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C.
(2) Thousands of innocent Americans were killed and injured as a result of these attacks, including the passengers and crew of the 4 aircraft, workers in the World Trade Center and in the Pentagon, rescue workers, and bystanders.
(3) These attacks destroyed both towers of the World Trade Center, as well as adjacent buildings, and seriously damaged the Pentagon.
(4) These attacks were by far the deadliest terrorist attacks ever launched against the United States, and, by targeting symbols of American strength and success, clearly were intended to intimidate our Nation and weaken its resolve.
(5) Article I, section 8, of the United States Constitution vests in Congress the power to declare war.
SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF WAR.
Congress hereby declares that a state of war exists between the United States of America and any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks against the United States on September 11 , 2001.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF ARMED FORCES.
The President is authorized to use United States Armed Forces and all other necessary resources of the United States Government against any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks against the United States on September 11 , 2001, in order to bring the conflict to a successful termination.
Source:U.S. Government Website
As far as evidence collected unlawfully by the data screening being used unlawfully by law enforcement, the potential exists with every known method of gathering evidence already. The problem would be with unethical law enforcers.
I enjoyed your comments. Just can't agree. Especially the arguement based on potential abuse of the intercepted communications. That possibility has always exisited before this mechanical method was dreamed of. I think it's a duty of law enforcement to police themselves and to be reviewed by the common citizen when it's needed. A rarity!
The terrorists are in no way similar to common criminals. They are non uniformed enemy combatants. These terrorists plainly fall into the catagory set forth below that are called entities. Check out the language used in the document below that allows the president to make certain determinations himself. we are at war with whomever the president dtermines we are.
Pay attention to the phrase : "a state of war exists between the United States of America and any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks against the United States on September 11 , 2001."
This is why the democrats are now retreating with their tails between their legs. It's also why there was no way to legally stop Bush from going into Iraq. It was undeniable that Iraq harbored terrorists and yes even al qaeda.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (Introduced in the House)
HJ 63 IH
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 63
Declaring that a state of war exists between the United States and any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks against the United States on September 11 , 2001, and authorizing the President to use United States Armed Forces and all other necessary resources of the United States Government against any such entity in order to bring the conflict to a successful termination.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 13, 2001
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. GILMAN, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT RESOLUTION
Declaring that a state of war exists between the United States and any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks against the United States on September 11 , 2001, and authorizing the President to use United States Armed Forces and all other necessary resources of the United States Government against any such entity in order to bring the conflict to a successful termination.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) On September 11 , 2001, terrorists hijacked and destroyed 4 civilian aircraft, crashing 2 of them into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C.
(2) Thousands of innocent Americans were killed and injured as a result of these attacks, including the passengers and crew of the 4 aircraft, workers in the World Trade Center and in the Pentagon, rescue workers, and bystanders.
(3) These attacks destroyed both towers of the World Trade Center, as well as adjacent buildings, and seriously damaged the Pentagon.
(4) These attacks were by far the deadliest terrorist attacks ever launched against the United States, and, by targeting symbols of American strength and success, clearly were intended to intimidate our Nation and weaken its resolve.
(5) Article I, section 8, of the United States Constitution vests in Congress the power to declare war.
SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF WAR.
Congress hereby declares that a state of war exists between the United States of America and any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks against the United States on September 11 , 2001.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF ARMED FORCES.
The President is authorized to use United States Armed Forces and all other necessary resources of the United States Government against any entity determined by the President to have planned, carried out, or otherwise supported the attacks against the United States on September 11 , 2001, in order to bring the conflict to a successful termination.
Source:U.S. Government Website
As far as evidence collected unlawfully by the data screening being used unlawfully by law enforcement, the potential exists with every known method of gathering evidence already. The problem would be with unethical law enforcers.
I enjoyed your comments. Just can't agree. Especially the arguement based on potential abuse of the intercepted communications. That possibility has always exisited before this mechanical method was dreamed of. I think it's a duty of law enforcement to police themselves and to be reviewed by the common citizen when it's needed. A rarity!
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
I got the point you were trying to make just fine. I was just pointing out a very few of the important differences between that situation and this one. One of those points would be that FDR grabbed all kinds of power as President, so much that the 22nd amendment was passed after his death to limit future FDRs. Yet despite this, FDR never attempted to do what you mentioned without the approval of Congress and the Judiciary. Now what does that say about the current administration?
Well automated voice recognition has improved dramatically if it can not only sort out which phone calls are being made by terrorists but can also tell whether the terrorist is one who planned, carried out or otherwise supported attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. I guess the Timothy McVeighs get a free pass?
On that note, what about American citizens who fall into that category? Do they surrender all their rights the moment they are accused of being a terrorist? Is it ok to use warrantless surveillance to gather evidence on them that will later be admissable in court so long as we don't allow it to be used against real Americans?
"Yet despite this, FDR never attempted to do what you mentioned without the approval of Congress and the Judiciary. Now what does that say about the current administration?"
I'd say that the current administration is doing what it was authorized as noted in my previous post from the formal declaration of war that so many here have said didn't exist in numerous threads.
"Well automated voice recognition has improved dramatically if it can not only sort out which phone calls are being made by terrorists but can also tell whether the terrorist is one who planned, carried out or otherwise supported attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001."I guess the Timothy McVeighs get a free pass?"
I'd say that both houses of congress and enough members of both parties realized that the war might involve more than one attack from the enemy and not just the attack on 9-11. The declaration of war mentions a conflict and mentions war.
"I guess the Timothy McVeighs get a free pass?"
No, the government terminated McVeigh in a much too pleasant fashion to suit my tastes. You mentioned not responding to silly rhetoric in a previous post.
Your McVeigh comment certainly meets that standard.
McVeighs will never have a free pass, never have.
"what about American citizens who fall into that category? Do they surrender all their rights the moment they are accused of being a terrorist? Is it ok to use warrantless surveillance to gather evidence on them that will later be admissable in court so long as we don't allow it to be used against real Americans?"
"Do they surrender all their rights the moment they are accused of being a terrorist?"
Really Bart, I thought you were above this type of alarmist rhetoric.
It's not unusual to have American collaborators during war time. Suspects may use jihad key words that cause an actual human to analyze the data.
If they are conspiring with the enemy, they will be prosecuted.
"On that note, what about American citizens who fall into that category? Do they surrender all their rights the moment they are accused of being a terrorist? Is it ok to use warrantless surveillance to gather evidence on them that will later be admissable in court so long as we don't allow it to be used against real Americans?
Bart, the matter has been addressed by the Supreme Court
"http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734
The Supreme Court in the 1972 "Keith case" held that a warrant was required for national security wiretaps involving purely domestic targets, but expressly distinguished the case from one involving wiretapping "foreign powers" or their agents in this country. In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote
ez45
I'd say that the current administration is doing what it was authorized as noted in my previous post from the formal declaration of war that so many here have said didn't exist in numerous threads.
"Well automated voice recognition has improved dramatically if it can not only sort out which phone calls are being made by terrorists but can also tell whether the terrorist is one who planned, carried out or otherwise supported attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001."I guess the Timothy McVeighs get a free pass?"
I'd say that both houses of congress and enough members of both parties realized that the war might involve more than one attack from the enemy and not just the attack on 9-11. The declaration of war mentions a conflict and mentions war.
"I guess the Timothy McVeighs get a free pass?"
No, the government terminated McVeigh in a much too pleasant fashion to suit my tastes. You mentioned not responding to silly rhetoric in a previous post.
Your McVeigh comment certainly meets that standard.
McVeighs will never have a free pass, never have.
"what about American citizens who fall into that category? Do they surrender all their rights the moment they are accused of being a terrorist? Is it ok to use warrantless surveillance to gather evidence on them that will later be admissable in court so long as we don't allow it to be used against real Americans?"
"Do they surrender all their rights the moment they are accused of being a terrorist?"
Really Bart, I thought you were above this type of alarmist rhetoric.
It's not unusual to have American collaborators during war time. Suspects may use jihad key words that cause an actual human to analyze the data.
If they are conspiring with the enemy, they will be prosecuted.
"On that note, what about American citizens who fall into that category? Do they surrender all their rights the moment they are accused of being a terrorist? Is it ok to use warrantless surveillance to gather evidence on them that will later be admissable in court so long as we don't allow it to be used against real Americans?
Bart, the matter has been addressed by the Supreme Court
"http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734
The Supreme Court in the 1972 "Keith case" held that a warrant was required for national security wiretaps involving purely domestic targets, but expressly distinguished the case from one involving wiretapping "foreign powers" or their agents in this country. In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote
ez45
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
And I've already explained why the notion that the authorization of military force supports this program is unlikely to fly in either Congress or the courts. But it would be an interesting case to make if you wanted to make sure the next President had his hands thoroughly tied by Congress a la 1972.
So if in the course of warrantless surveillance, we discovered evidence of purely domestic terrorism unrelated to 9/11, you would support allowing the evidence gathered without a warrant to be used to arrest and detain future McVeighs?
But didn't you say earlier that warrantless surveillance would be inadmissible against Americans who have Constitutional protections? How do you prosecute them if you can't use the information you obtained to get a warrant? Or did I misunderstand your earlier point?
ez45, I get the feeling that not only are you not reading any links I provide; but that you aren't reading many of the words I write either. The ruling you quote is consistent with my earlier post pointing out NSA already had the authority to monitor foreign agents and terrorists. However, under the 1972 and 2002 rulings, there was never any suggestion that widespread automated processing could be used to monitor an American talking to any foreigner (domestic or internationally as you note) on the basis that the person MIGHT be a foreign agent. Do you understand why this is a significant difference that bothers me?
Since nobody knows exactly what the Bush administration is doing, it is difficult to say if that is the case. But we do know that despite the 1972 and 2002 rulings, the Bush Administration sought an amendment to the law in 2004. Not much need to do that if you are only targeting known terrorists and foreign agents, is there?