Gore & Barr Blast Bush on Surveillance

administration lies ?

If anyone has unrefutable evidence that the administration lied ,they should make it known. Remember now," I didn't have sex with that woman". I would rather trust the current administration than the terrorist, or the DEMOCRATS like Al Gore who will take our guns . This is not about the "Right to keep and bear arms", its about controlling a vast terrorist network. I like things the way they were in the 50's and 60's but now I have to lock my house. Lets all agree that times are never gonna be gentle and serene again like they were in the past.
 
raktrack -
First let me say, I think your rightly pi$$ed-off with the hypocracy of those pointing fingers at this administration. I have not spent enough time looking into this situation to make an informed opinion as to the legality of what was done.

But For me, at least, this discussion poses questions that go way beyond Democrat or Republican.

IMNSHO, all of us are too quick to allow some small infringement or two of our rights or our a dearture from the Constitution because in some 'special case', it is very important, or critical to our safety, or what the people want right now, etc. Problem is, we never seem to get full control of those rights returned to us after the crisis passes.

In an earlier post you correctly pointed out that the Founders could not have imagined what we are facing now. I agree. That's why they put provisions into the Constitution to allow it to be changed as needed, but made it very difficult so it could not done in the emotion of the moment. I don't believe we have faced a situation in connection with 9/11 that could not or have been addressed under the current rule of law.

We ALWAYS need to consider the future 'ripple effects' of letting ANY of our rights or the Constitution be trampled. BTW, taking rights and power from the governed is the natural tendancy of ALL people who govern, from BOTH sides of the isle. As Jefferson said: "“Put not your faith in men, but bind them down with the chains of the Constitution.”

I do not fault anybody who wants to save this country, I just don't want them heading down the wrong road to do so. Maybe the next President who wants to follow that same path my not have your or my best interests at heart.
 
Phxdog wrote, in part, the following. Strikes me that his points are well worth considering.

But For me, at least, this discussion poses questions that go way beyond Democrat or Republican.

IMNSHO, all of us are too quick to allow some small infringement or two of our rights or our a dearture from the Constitution because in some 'special case', it is very important, or critical to our safety, or what the people want right now, etc. Problem is, we never seem to get full control of those rights returned to us after the crisis passes.

In an earlier post you correctly pointed out that the Founders could not have imagined what we are facing now. I agree. That's why they put provisions into the Constitution to allow it to be changed as needed, but made it very difficult so it could not done in the emotion of the moment. I don't believe we have faced a situation in connection with 9/11 that could not or have been addressed under the current rule of law.

We ALWAYS need to consider the future 'ripple effects' of letting ANY of our rights or the Constitution be trampled. BTW, taking rights and power from the governed is the natural tendancy of ALL people who govern, from BOTH sides of the isle. As Jefferson said: "“Put not your faith in men, but bind them down with the chains of the Constitution.”

I do not fault anybody who wants to save this country, I just don't want them heading down the wrong road to do so. Maybe the next President who wants to follow that same path my not have your or my best interests at heart.
 
phxdog--------you are correct in your thinking-----

I agree that we should not do it lightly. You're points are well taken. I was raised to believe in GOD and Country and that all life is Sacred. If I can spare lives I will seek to do so, I just never have seen a snake (terrorist) that you could reason with. Maybe we should offer some other suggestions to our Government as new procedure to follow. I think they are more aware of our danger than we imagine. I'm a person who believes good people will endure. It's not a matter of fear as much as my belief that innocent people should be free from TERROR. :( :( :(
 
Quote: "Maybe we we should offer some other suggestions to our Government as new procedure to follow."

Well said, raktrak.
 
For people that are so absolute on the right to bear arms have you given up on ALL OUR OTHER RIGHTS? The truth, if anyone took time to digest is that it is not only overseas calls but also calls within the USA are and were being monitored. This is against the law. It is also NOT hard at all to get an instant OK from the 'secret court'. Daaah, is that a hard concept to understand? The President, whoever he or she is, whatever party they belong to, they are NOT above the law, period.
 
While I like how this issue has engendered discussion on Constituational Law, personal freedom and the unennumerated (but often cherished) Right to Privacy. What I don't like is that amount of talking heads on all sides of the issue that haven't read Public Law 95-511 (FISA) and don't have the specifics of the communications in question. Just so there's no confusion about what I'm talking about, here is the very first paragraph of FISA:

"Permits the President, acting through the Attorney General, to authorize electronic surveillances for foreign intelligence purposes without a court order in certain circumstances. Requires the Attorney General: (1) to certify that the minimization procedures governing these surveillances meet certain standards; and (2) to forward such procedures to the House and Senate intelligence committees at least 30 days prior to their going into effect. Provides for the Attorney General to direct a specified common carrier to render assistance. Directs the Attorney General to transmit a copy of the certification for electronic surveillance to the appropriate court where it is to be maintained under security measures and remain seal, except in certain circumstances."

Having worked on the periphery of FISA cases, I can assure the readers here that the Carter Administration did, in fact, draft the applicable standards, that they were approved by the House and Senate intelligence committees and that they are still in effect (with some modifications by succeeding Administrations). Wiretap law has always been a gray area, with certain courts holding that telephonic communications have an ironclad expectation of privacy and some holding there is none at all; most have erred on the side of caution and held there to be an expectation of privacy, but the case law is by no means completely settled. Further, there is a difference between what may or may not be admissable in a court of law versus what can be used as an investigative tool. A similar example can be found in the use of polygraphic evidence, which while inadmissable in court can be used by skilled investigators as confirmatory or exculpatory tool.

I understand why the Administration hasn't disclosed more details about who they've been listening to and why...because FISA itself makes it "a criminal offense for officers or employees of the United States to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as specifically authorized or to disclose information through unlawful electronic surveillance. Imposes civil and criminal liability for such violations and authorizes the recovery of actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees by an aggrieved person other than a foreign power."

This whole thread reminds me of the Quakers in Florida being offended that anyone could view them as a threat. I follow Reagan's maxim: Trust, But Verify. If digging into the details turns up nothing, eliminate them, but don't simply fail to investigate reports because they might be politically inexpedient.
 
Well all I can say is, If it were your families who died on 9/11, you would want the president to use all available options used to get the terrorist, no matter what cost. But it wasnt your families, So that leaves room for people to find something wrong to attack on. However President Bush is our president untill his term is up, so B@tch if you want, there is nothing that could be done about it. If Gore were president, we wouldnt have went over seas and no telling what would be happening in the country today. If you dont have anything to hide, it shouldnt bother you if your wire tapped. Also I see someone say they agree with Al Gore, and what is this world coming to. If a sissy demo is elected next round, you will see not only what the world is coming to, but also where it is going....to sh@t!!!!!!!
 
If you dont have anything to hide, it shouldnt bother you if your wire tapped.
Click to expand...

If you're not planning on murdering someone, it shouldn't bother you to have your guns registered.

If you're not planning on raping someone, it shouldn't bother you to surrender a sample of your DNA.

If you're not planning on driving drunk, it shouldn't bother you to have a Breathalyzer wired to the ignition of your car.

If you're not planning on carrying a gun illegally, it shouldn't bother you to be wanded every time you step out of your house.

If you're not planning on sending your kids to school with guns and drugs, it shouldn't bother you to have them strip-searched and their lockers sniffed by drug dogs every day.

All these things shouldn't bother you if you're not bothered by a wiretap on your phone.

Freedom is Slavery. You know there's no hope for the Bill of Rights when the citizenry not only fails to protest the abrogation of their rights, but asks for tighter and better chains around their ankles.
 
If the US Constitution is to be illegally abrogated (not saying that's happened; we don't have all the facts yet), surely we can find a more creative reason for doing so than on the backs of heroes like the NYPD and NYFD who died trying to save others that fateful day.

Perhaps we can use our dead in the Sandbox as an excuse.....after all, I'm certain they were fighting, not for our freedom and way of life, but for something much more insidious; our "safety".
Rich
 
Gotta ask a question of the thread's contributors. I've watch the comments with interest from a specific standpoint. Posters seem to have considerable questions about the legality of Bush's actions in the latest wiretapping episode. I daresay there exists condemnation of his actions. I furthermore assert there is a presumption of guilt on his part for violating the law.

How come it is the same level of venom (for lack of a better term) doesn't exist for congress over Campaign Finance Control legislation. How come the same venom is not directed toward SCOTUS for upholding legislation that is on its face contrary to the expressed words of the Bill or Rights. How come congress is not attacked for dealing immediately with SCOTUS' overreaching with corrective legislation. How come SCOTUS isn't ragged over Kelo. No more unAmerican decision has been seen yet no movement by congress to block its effects. One could excuse inaction by saying the problem is being dealt with via judge nominations. I say that is indirect control at best and certainly not assured in its effectiveness.

Are we on Bush's case because there is one person to focus on? Do we ignore Kelo and CFC because several kesters have to be kicked? I'm puzzled by the difference in response on at least this forum.
 
Waitone-
I see very few using this as an excuse to bash Bush; for my own part, I voted for him...twice. However, just as this shouldn't be used to bash the guy if you don't like him, he shouldn't receive an automatic "pass" if you do.

There is a real question of whether this activity was a targeted surveillance of known and suspected terrorists or a data mining op that included some large numbers of American citizens, many of whom would logically have been talking to loved one's in harms way in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again, speaking just for me, the really disturbing part is the number of Members here who simply couldn't care less if the action was Constitutional or not....that's a dangerous and disturbing position for any group who claims, in the next breath, to be defenders of the Bill of Rights.
Rich
 
mea culpa

Y'know in all honesty I'm not that worried about how Bush is using these techniques. I still view this as very wrong but not because I think Bush is going to start spying on me or my friends...my worry is that we have no idea who will be in office next term. Or the one after that, or the next dozen terms. Maybe some people don't care how the world will be in twenty, fifty, or a hundred years but I do.


To those that believe this is justified because we're at "war": how would you feel if Hillary Clinton has these powers in two years and decides that gun owners are as much a threat to national security as terrorists? What if gun owners ARE terrorists in the eyes of the 2012 President?
 
Rich, I notice the same thing as you noticed. It is concerning to see people who will simply roll over just because government says to roll over particularly on a board devoted to all things constitutional.

I am further concerned over the discrepency in level of outrage between the two poles I mentioned. One one pole we have the possible violation of law. The jury is still out on whether or not there was a violation. Reasonable people can disagree as to the interpretation of law. The other pole is constituted by clear cut violation of constitutional provisions. CFC clearly infringes on political free speech--the very kind of speech the first amendment was written to protect. Kelo is an in-your-face denial of the simple language of the fourth amendment. It violates the spirit of America and is destined to create a hostile environment if pushed to the logical extremes. In summary the other pole is made up of self-evident constitutional violations.

Yet I see no outrage. Have we degenerated to the point of picking the mote out of our eye and ignoring the railroad tie? Are we ok with bald-faced power grabs but will fight tooth and nail over possible violation of law.

Let me go one step further. Assume for the sake of argument the president simply ignored the law by stepping around FISA. The president failed to enforce the law. What is the difference between ignoring FISA and ignoring immigration laws. It is clear in both cases one could say the president failed to enforce properly constituted law because it is incovenient. We get a lot of huffing and puffing over FISA but evidently illegal immigration doesn't deserve the outrage.
 
Waitone-
I can't speak for everyone else, but my public statements are pretty consistent on each of these issues.

Kelo was a bad ruling by SCOTUS. I'm as outraged as everyone else; however, victims of Kelo have opportunity for redress.....many States are already changing their laws in response to public pressure. That's not good enough, I know; but it's sure better than not even knowing what you're up against.

Perhaps the Illegal Immigration issue fails to raise as large a hue and cry because it's been with us a very long time; it truly is complicated (unless you're willing to simply start enforcing laws that have been ignored for years and face the economic backlash: I am); non-enforcement generally doesn't generate the interest that criminal action does (again, not saying these taps are criminal...we don't have all the facts).

Perhaps most important, IF some of the reports are correct, this would be an action taken against US Citizens, suspected of nothing whatsoever, by an Executive branch, in defiance of an already secret Court. That's why the story has (and should have) legs.
Rich
 
Waitone:

Re the following, excerpted from your post, "Yet I see no outrage. Have we degenerated to the point of picking the mote out of our eye and ignoring the railroad tie? Are we ok with bald-faced power grabs but will fight tooth and nail over possible violation of law",
the answer might be YES.

Would it be to much to remind people of Ben Franklin's observation on "essential liberties and tempory security", I wonder.
 
This is not about the "Right to keep and bear arms", its about controlling a vast terrorist network. I like things the way they were in the 50's and 60's but now I have to lock my house. Lets all agree that times are never gonna be gentle and serene again like they were in the past.
Click to expand...

No its about all 10 of those amendments.. If a branch of Govenment says it has the authority to overide the Fourth Amendment how safe is the second Amendment. All this sets a precedent. Suppose the next administration that gets in after Bush is not gun owner friendly? They could also say that they are overiding the Second Amendment due to being in a war and safety.

So if we dont stand up for our rights now things could get worse down the road. Sometimes we citizens have to draw that line and tell government this is as far as you go.
 
Perhaps most important, IF some of the reports are correct, this would be an action taken against US Citizens, suspected of nothing whatsoever, by an Executive branch, in defiance of an already secret Court. That's why the story has (and should have) legs.
Click to expand...

I must admit, when you put it like that it sure sounds scary. I think that's why the story has been getting so much air time. I don't think the facts are anywhere near as sexy, though. Since its passage in 1978, the FISA has allowed for searches without warrants in certain circumstances. While that makes the hair stand up on a lot of folks' necks, I don't think it's a piece of dangerous legislation because 1) the Fourth Ammendment requires only that persons be protected against "unreasonable searches and seizures" against "their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and not against any and all governmental investigation, and 2) there are extensive regulations, policies and procedures that govern warrantless FISA activity. I also know that it takes time, effort, manpower and money to "spy" on people...and that it isn't done without reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top