Page 18 of 28 FirstFirst ... 81314151617181920212223 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 546
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #341  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Cardio, please cite as I would like to read about this. This is new news to me and if what you say is true, then that would be precedent, and that will let us know how this thing is going to wash out.
    Here is one cite, I have posted these a couple of times in this thread.

    http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2610-7772r.htm and
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...commentary-hed

    Simple google will bring up more.

    We may not like it or agree with it, but it has been done and the courts have all said it is within the law.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #342  
    I know this is just a picture but I thought it was amusing.




  3. #343  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I know this is just a picture but I thought it was amusing.
    It's more than just a picture. It's a blatant lie, verbatim.
  4. #344  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's more than just a picture. It's a blatant lie, verbatim.
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I know this is just a picture but I thought it was amusing.
    Are you even remotely aware of the specific context that quote was ripped free of???

    Thanks for raising the level of the debate.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  5. #345  
    For your edification - here's the ENTIRE quote, given at an event where the Patriot Act was the topic of discussion...
    Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

    But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligen[t] drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

    The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  6. #346  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Are you even remotely aware of the specific context that quote was ripped free of???

    Thanks for raising the level of the debate.

    Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.
  7. #347  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.
    I'll take that as a no, even though I posted the entire quote.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  8.    #348  
    It seems the Bush administration being a group of sane, informed adults has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.

    During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his associates, the government seized computers, cell phones and personal phone books. Soon after the raids, the National Security Agency began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone numbers found in al-Qaida Rolodexes.

    That was true even if you were "an American citizen" making the call from U.S. territory like convicted al-Qaida associate Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be spying on people like Faris, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

    By intercepting phone calls to people on Zubaydah's speed-dial, the NSA arrested not only "American citizen" Faris, but other Arab terrorists, including al-Qaida members plotting to bomb British pubs and train stations.

    from ann coulter site. I truly hope Dems run on this platform in the elections. You know that we shouldn't be wiretapping people known to communicate with terrorists. It will be another win.
  9. #349  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I'll take that as a no, even though I posted the entire quote.
    I saw the tape of that speech and it most certainly was perceived by me to be an all emcompassing aside although the main topic was the Patriot Act.
  10. #350  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I'll take that as a no, even though I posted the entire quote.
    I must be missing your point. The entire quote changes nothing. It still admits that a warrant is required. While the Patriot Act allows roving wiretaps, those roving wiretaps still require a warrant.
  11. #351  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I must be missing your point. The entire quote changes nothing. It still admits that a warrant is required. While the Patriot Act allows roving wiretaps, those roving wiretaps still require a warrant.
    Yes. Obviously a warrant is required for the type of surveillance that is covered by the Patriot Act - which is precisely what the president was saying.

    The little cartoon posted by NRG said plainly that the president lied and selectively quoted him to try and prove it. The full context of Bush's statement makes clear he wasn't talking about the type of surveillance being conducted by the NSA. That is unless one wishes to believe the president was saying all wiretapping under any and all circumstances would be done after first obtaining a warrant - and this would have to include spying by our military on our enemies in a time of war. That's simply a ridiculous position.

    The context of the quote in fact changes everything.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  12. #352  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I saw the tape of that speech and it most certainly was perceived by me to be an all emcompassing aside although the main topic was the Patriot Act.
    Because you heard what you wanted to hear. Unless you want to make the case that Bush meant we would get warrants for all foreign intel surveillance, you're going nowhere with this.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  13. #353  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Yes. Obviously a warrant is required for the type of surveillance that is covered by the Patriot Act - which is precisely what the president was saying.

    The little cartoon posted by NRG said plainly that the president lied and selectively quoted him to try and prove it. The full context of Bush's statement makes clear he wasn't talking about the type of surveillance being conducted by the NSA. That is unless one wishes to believe the president was saying all wiretapping under any and all circumstances would be done after first obtaining a warrant - and this would have to include spying by our military on our enemies in a time of war. That's simply a ridiculous position.

    The context of the quote in fact changes everything.
    Perhaps. Perhaps you read it the way you want to. "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." To me, "any time" means any time. "Nothing has changed" means what the words say. "Were talking about getting a court order" means what the words say. Admit it. He intended to mislead.
  14. #354  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    T2, your statement that Presidents have been abiding in FISA up unitl now is completely false. It has been shown that Presidents have gone around FISA with every administration since its conception. The going around FISA has been before the courts and the courts have declared the Presidents had the authority to do so.
    Maybe I am confused then. I am not assuming that PHYSICAL searches are the same as ELECTRONIC searches.

    There seems to be a distinction that I am not making clear (and hopefully it will be thereafter).

    I agree that past Presidents have done warrantless PHYSICAL searches and that some appellate courts have said that if it is for foreign intelligence, than it is permissible.

    What I am talking about now is the warrantless ELECTRONIC searches on American citizens.

    The FISA law deals with electronic warrantless searches (from your own linked article):link
    A Washington Post report at the time said the new FISA law permits "the government (primarily NSA with the occasional help of an FBI 'black bag job' or break-in) to continue electronic spying without a court order if it is directed solely at the premises or communications of 'official' powers, such as governments, factions or entities openly known to be directed and controlled by foreign governments."
    In that same WA Times article, it references PHYSICAL searches of Ames under Clinton and then another example under Carter (two men spying for Vietnam). No where in the Times article does it state that another President (prior to President Bush) authorized ELECTRONIC surveillance without a warrant. If it does, please point it out to me.

    The Chicago article goes a little further:

    Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
    Again, the issue of physical versus electronic searches comes to light. Also, just because a President asserts something does not mean

    1) That the President has actually exercised that right nor
    2) That the President has that right.

    As far as the Supreme Courts decision in Keith:

    In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
    Two issues come to mind (since the prevention of the Brooklyn Bridge bombing example was raised). First, it is arguable that it was a domestic threat (since it happened on American soil). Second, that decision did not explicitly say that the President can order electronic surveillance without a warrant on U.S. citizens (I concede though that the court is leaving the door open for that type of interpretation.)

    So, if FISA deals with ELECTRONIC warrantless searches then I am not sure how you can claim that I am COMPLETELY FALSE in saying the past Presidents have abided with FISA (since the articles you presented showed examples of past Presidents doing PHYSICAL searches, not ELECTRONIC ones without warrants). My friend the burden is now on you to present evidence that past presidents have authorized warrantless electronic searches. (and maybe there have been, but I haven't read that in your links).

    (As an aside, the simple fact that AG Gonzales had to rely on the post 9/11 resolution to say that Congress 'implied' that President Bush had the power to ignore the FISA requirement weakens the argument that the President had the power in the first place.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  15. #355  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    If you think the government should not be spying on people like Faris, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
    I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't have a problem with the government spying, just as long as due process is afforded and if there is a law requiring a warrant, then we get one. Once we have the warrant, spy away!

    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    from ann coulter site. I truly hope Dems run on this platform in the elections. You know that we shouldn't be wiretapping people known to communicate with terrorists. It will be another win.
    I am really not interested in the political side of this. If by standing for a principle, that means that one side will lose an election...so be it. It appears that Ann supports taking a position that is the most popular with the majority regardless if it's right. If you support that in a leader, than just recognize it. I expect a leader to stand up for what's right regardless if it's not popular.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  16. #356  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Admit it. He intended to mislead.
    Look - he was clearly speaking in the context of the Patriot Act. I provided that context because it was missing from the cheap shots that were taken here earlier. If you choose to ignore the context of Bush's remarks, that's your choice, but let's not accuse me of selective hearing since I was the one providing the *entire* quote.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  17. #357  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Look - he was clearly speaking in the context of the Patriot Act. .......
    Is your point that he was not lying because he was talking about what the USA PATRIOT Act provided? That he would only be lying if he was talking about what he was doing?
  18. #358  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Is your point that he was not lying because he was talking about what the USA PATRIOT Act provided?
    Yes. I thought that was pretty clearly my point.

    Keep another thing in mind - I believe the NY Times had the story and the administration knew it at the time of that statement. Several members of Congress also knew about the NSA program. Why on earth would the president bust into an all-inclusive claim that we'd always obtain warrants in any and all cases? It doesn't make sense.

    This NSA program is foreign intelligence operation - that's how the administration sees it. It is viewed no differently that intercepting enemy communications on the battlefield. Our forces captured laptops and cell phones from terrorists overseas. Are they not to be expected to investigate the numbers and information off those captured devices? Remember that the primary goal is the prevention of an attack. Remember also that FISA is a drawn-out process that requires probable cause be proven to a judge. If that FISA judge does not issue the warrant, and intel obtained must be destroyed and cannot be shared with any other agency.

    If FISA is followed in these circumstances, we might well get a phone number, begin monitoring calls from that number to a known terrorist number. At the time we begin monitoring, we would start the FISA warrant procedure - but with no probably cause that that nuber belongs to anyone suspected of anything criminal, the chance of getting the warrant is slim. We begin monitoring anyway because we have 72 hours to get the warrant. We might overhear hints that an attack might be planned for next week. We might then hear from our FISA judge that we did not show probable cause and our warrant application is denied. Since the warrant is denied, we must now destroy all evidence thus far obtained and we are not allowed to share it with local police, the FBI, anyone...

    Who out there thinks this is a good idea???
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  19. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #359  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Maybe I am confused then. I am not assuming that PHYSICAL searches are the same as ELECTRONIC searches.

    There seems to be a distinction that I am not making clear (and hopefully it will be thereafter).

    I agree that past Presidents have done warrantless PHYSICAL searches and that some appellate courts have said that if it is for foreign intelligence, than it is permissible.

    What I am talking about now is the warrantless ELECTRONIC searches on American citizens.

    The FISA law deals with electronic warrantless searches (from your own linked article):link In that same WA Times article, it references PHYSICAL searches of Ames under Clinton and then another example under Carter (two men spying for Vietnam). No where in the Times article does it state that another President (prior to President Bush) authorized ELECTRONIC surveillance without a warrant. If it does, please point it out to me.

    The Chicago article goes a little further:

    Again, the issue of physical versus electronic searches comes to light. Also, just because a President asserts something does not mean

    1) That the President has actually exercised that right nor
    2) That the President has that right.

    As far as the Supreme Courts decision in Keith:

    Two issues come to mind (since the prevention of the Brooklyn Bridge bombing example was raised). First, it is arguable that it was a domestic threat (since it happened on American soil). Second, that decision did not explicitly say that the President can order electronic surveillance without a warrant on U.S. citizens (I concede though that the court is leaving the door open for that type of interpretation.)

    So, if FISA deals with ELECTRONIC warrantless searches then I am not sure how you can claim that I am COMPLETELY FALSE in saying the past Presidents have abided with FISA (since the articles you presented showed examples of past Presidents doing PHYSICAL searches, not ELECTRONIC ones without warrants). My friend the burden is now on you to present evidence that past presidents have authorized warrantless electronic searches. (and maybe there have been, but I haven't read that in your links).

    (As an aside, the simple fact that AG Gonzales had to rely on the post 9/11 resolution to say that Congress 'implied' that President Bush had the power to ignore the FISA requirement weakens the argument that the President had the power in the first place.)
    Everyone who argues the physical/electronic scenario completely skips this line in the quotes

    "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
    That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.

    Notice how this quote does not differientiat between the two seaches
    More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." What type of warrentless search for intelligence information do you think this refers to?

    And, do you really want to argue the point that physical searches without a warrent are any different than electronic wiretapping of individuals with known or at least highly suspected of working with terrorist?

    Also, in reference to the above cited cases (Ames, and the Vietnam spy case) there is no record of a warrent being issued through FISA to eavesdrop on their converations. If there was no warrent can we assume they did not have any intel to lead them to believe they were spys and just happened to dig through their personal property looking for evidence of a crime?

    Jimmy Carter's Attorney General, Griffin Bell, emphasized when FISA passed that the law "does not take away the power of the President under the Constitution." And in the 1980 case of United States v. Truong, the Carter Administration successfully argued the government's authority to have conducted entirely domestic, warrantless wiretaps of a U.S. citizen and a Vietnamese citizen who had been passing intelligence to the North Vietnamese during the 1970s Paris peace talks.



    If previous administrations did not perform wiretaps without a warrent why did they go to the trouble of arguing the valididty of such acts, why did it go through the court system and why was it upheld through at least 4 appealate courts?
    Last edited by cardio; 01/10/2006 at 10:43 AM.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  20. #360  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Everyone who argues the physical/electronic scenario completely skips this line in the quotes

    "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
    That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
    Of course we see this line...but remember who is saying it (i.e. the same person who argues the legal interests of the President.) Do you think this is a fair and unbiased opinion? Ask yourself this...what else is she going to say? Now if this was from a judge on an appellate court than I would concede...but this isnt even close to that. Gorelick is a lawyer arguing what the law should be....not what the law is.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Notice how this quote does not differientiat between the two seaches.
    Of course...Gorelick doesnt want to seperate them.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." What type of warrentless search for intelligence information do you think this refers to?
    You want me to infer? I asked you to provide proof and you offer an inference after claiming I was COMPLETELY FALSE? My opinion is that it was physical searches...unless you can show proof otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    And, do you really want to argue the point that physical searches without a warrent are any different than electronic wiretapping of individuals with known or at least highly suspected of working with terrorist? .
    This is EXACTLY what an attorney would do.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Also, in reference to the above cited cases (Ames, and the Vietnam spy case) there is no record of a warrent being issued through FISA to eavesdrop on their converations. If there was no warrent can we assume they did not have any intel to lead them to believe they were spys and just happened to dig through their personal property looking for evidence of a crime?.
    Again...I dont know but I asked you for the proof and you are giving me inferences. They could have gotten all sorts of intel from third parties, ties from other countries, etc. Plus in Ames, they physically searched his house. I didnt read in your linked story where they electronically surveillanced him (I could have missed it though).

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Jimmy Carter's Attorney General, Griffin Bell, emphasized when FISA passed that the law "does not take away the power of the President under the Constitution." .
    Again this is an AG making a claim...his own legal opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    And in the 1980 case of United States v. Truong, the Carter Administration successfully argued the government's authority to have conducted entirely domestic, warrantless wiretaps of a U.S. citizen and a Vietnamese citizen who had been passing intelligence to the North Vietnamese during the 1970s Paris peace talks..
    I will have to research this...I havent seen this story.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    If previous administrations did not perform wiretaps without a warrent why did they go to the trouble of arguing the valididty of such acts, why did it go through the court system and why was it upheld through at least 4 appealate courts?
    Administrations will argue you do it because they never want to give up any power.

    I havent seen a link or story of an appellate court that says the the President does not have to use FISA to electronically spy on a US citizen.

    (I typed all of this on my ppc :-)
    Last edited by t2gungho; 01/10/2006 at 06:51 PM.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

Posting Permissions