Page 23 of 28 FirstFirst ... 131819202122232425262728 LastLast
Results 441 to 460 of 546
  1. #441  
    Notice how the headlines influence your opinion by calling it a domestic surveillance program. Language is so important. Remember how "homeless" people used to be called "bums" before the liberal media got to them?

    Anyway, you guys are all wrong.

    Bush IS illegally spying on poor American citizens... we KNOW this because he's a dastardly conservative. He began this illegal, impeachable program, which is an affront to the Constitution, shortly after he invented the hurricane Katrina to push those poor people in liberal, unprepared New Orleans out of their homes. He's such a meanie. Let's GET HIM!!!
  2. #442  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Allow me to lay out a hypothetical case to see if I understand your position correctly:

    We are monitoring the communications of a suspected terrorist
    Ask yourself who is making this determination? A judge?

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    (who is our military enemy) in Pakistan.
    What if this person is a US citizen (regardless if they are a terrorist. Are they still a military enemy that should only be handled by military forces or police forces?)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    During the course of that monitoring, the suspect places a call to a number in New Jersey. Is it your position that we should not monitor that call, but should attempt to obtain a warrant from the FISA court to begin monitoring? If so, what would be the probable cause in this case that the holder of the US phone number is an "agent of a foreign power" and not simply a Persian rug merchant? Do you think the FISA court would issue a warrant under these circumstances?
    Maybe not...but you point out a problem where the law does not seem to adequately handle the threat. What should we do in that case? Ignore existing law (arbitrarily) and do something else or get Congress to make exceptions for electronic surveillance during this war on terrorism?

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    And do you understand the consequences of the warrant being denied? If the warrant is denied all evidence gathered must be destroyed and cannot under any circumstances be shared with any other agency.
    72 hours after the eavesdropping we should have a pretty good idea if they are a terrorist and if they are planning an attack. For criminal charges, yes the evidence would not be admissible. For intelligence purposes, Im not sure it would work out the way you say.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Does this sound like a rational way to defend your country?
    Rational for the rule of law or from a utilitarianistic point of view. I agree that you make a compelling argument for why we should do this based on a cost/benefit analysis. I wouldn't argue that...I just worry that from the rule of law standpoint, is this really what we want to do (and the precedent it sets.)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    This is the scenario laid out by the President and the head of the NSA in recent days for exactly how this program is being conducted.
    How do you know this?

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    There is no indiscriminate monitoring of ordinary US citizens. No one's rights are being infringed. If this NSA monitoring were actually violating any reasonable expectation of civil rights and had no military utility I would be on your side of this discussion.
    You wouldn't even know.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Some small number of US citizens who are receiving calls from terrorists are having those calls monitored - I'm sorry, but those receiving calls from terrorists hardly have a reasonable expectation that those conversations will be private.
    What if a terrorist called me by mistake? I answer and the call then is eavesdropped on? They begin talking like they know me and I say "Hey you got the wrong number" or "I don't know what you are talking about." Do you think that eavesdropping like that on my telephone line without a warrant is legal? (alternatively, do you think the NSA would stop listening to additional calls to come in to see if it really was a mistake or to see of other terrorists continue calling my number?) Remember, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy that my phone will not be bugged without a warrant. I could still have that expectation and receive a phone call(s) from 'suspected' terrorists.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. #443  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Ask yourself who is making this determination? A judge?
    In my hypothetical we are monitoring overseas. I hope to God it is not a judge making that determination...
    What if this person is a US citizen (regardless if they are a terrorist. Are they still a military enemy that should only be handled by military forces or police forces?)
    If they are outside the US, they are not under the jurisdiction of the US courts. Again, I hope to God the courts wouldn't be running our military ops. At any rate, there has been no suggestion that any US citizen has been on the foreign end of these conversations.
    Maybe not...but you point out a problem where the law does not seem to adequately handle the threat. What should we do in that case? Ignore existing law (arbitrarily) and do something else or get Congress to make exceptions for electronic surveillance during this war on terrorism?
    My entire point is that making this determination is the job of the President. Thank you for pointing out exactly why the founding fathers thought this the best way to apportion responsibility for the national defense.
    72 hours after the eavesdropping we should have a pretty good idea if they are a terrorist and if they are planning an attack. For criminal charges, yes the evidence would not be admissible. For intelligence purposes, Im not sure it would work out the way you say.
    AG Gonzales yesterday laid out an extremely compelling case why the 72 hour issue is a non-starter. Even if I grant that it were possible to get attempt to obtain a warrant 72 hours later, I have to insist that what I've read indicates that if a FISA warrant is denied, all evidence gathered must be destroyed. This may also be entirely academic since the congressional authorization for the use of force triggers an exception in FISA - again according to AG Gonzales.
    Rational for the rule of law or from a utilitarianistic point of view. I agree that you make a compelling argument for why we should do this based on a cost/benefit analysis. I wouldn't argue that...I just worry that from the rule of law standpoint, is this really what we want to do (and the precedent it sets.)
    As has been amply pointed out in this thread, the precedent for Presidential authority in the national defense goes back way before George W. Bush was even born. The rule of law (the Constitution - the ultimate rule of law in the US) is quite clear that the President alone has command of the US armed forces. If there has been a threat to the rule of law here, it seems clear to me that that threat is coming from the courts and the Congress via FISA - not from the current President. If one does not accept that the President has such authority, one must also confront the fact that no new authority is being claimed here. In fact, the authority claimed is far less intrusive than what has been claimed by past Presidents with far less justification.
    How do you know this?
    Did you hear the President's speech in Kansas Monday? This is how he explained what they've been doing.
    You wouldn't even know.
    So how exactly is one to prove what one does not know? If there is a specific allegation of an abuse, an investigation should happen. Until then, all we have are wild charges in the media with zero substantiation.
    What if a terrorist called me by mistake? I answer and the call then is eavesdropped on? They begin talking like they know me and I say "Hey you got the wrong number" or "I don't know what you are talking about." Do you think that eavesdropping like that on my telephone line without a warrant is legal? (alternatively, do you think the NSA would stop listening to additional calls to come in to see if it really was a mistake or to see of other terrorists continue calling my number?) Remember, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy that my phone will not be bugged without a warrant. I could still have that expectation and receive a phone call(s) from 'suspected' terrorists.
    According to what has been disclosed by the President and others in his administration, the calls being monitored are those that originate outside the US and in some cases have endpoints in the US. To put a tap on your phone to monitor further calls on your line, they would in fact need a warrant. That has never been at issue here. You raise a case that is outside the boundary of the NSA surveillance as it has been described.
    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...
  4. #444  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    In my hypothetical we are monitoring overseas.
    Fair enough...but no one is making an argument that the NSA can't listen to phone calls that are entirely abroad.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    At any rate, there has been no suggestion that any US citizen has been on the foreign end of these conversations.
    But that is kind of the point here...you and I wouldn't even be having this conversation if it wasnt reported in the news.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    My entire point is that making this determination is the job of the President. Thank you for pointing out exactly why the founding fathers thought this the best way to apportion responsibility for the national defense.
    Are you saying that in the constitutional role of providing national defense, the President can violate constitutional provisions for us as citizens? I would argue that the Presidents executive power under the Article 2 does not allow him to violate the Bill of Rights that you and I have protection under without due process of law.

    Congress still has authorizational oversight to go to war and Congress controls spending during war. Congress could pull the plug on military spending in Iraq which would effectively require the President withdraw troops so to say that the founding fathers apportioned national defense just to the President is not quite as convincing. (And since you brought up the founding father's argument, they also did not want the executive branch to be able to circumvent the law of the land...i.e. no king)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    AG Gonzales yesterday laid out an extremely compelling case why the 72 hour issue is a non-starter. Even if I grant that it were possible to get attempt to obtain a warrant 72 hours later, I have to insist that what I've read indicates that if a FISA warrant is denied, all evidence gathered must be destroyed.
    Do you really think that the NSA would destroy all the evidence that it had gathered if they knew they were on a plot to bring down a bridge or something? (and even if it did, lets fix the law instead of ignore it.)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    This may also be entirely academic since the congressional authorization for the use of force triggers an exception in FISA - again according to AG Gonzales.
    Well, that is his interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    As has been amply pointed out in this thread, the precedent for Presidential authority in the national defense goes back way before George W. Bush was even born. The rule of law (the Constitution - the ultimate rule of law in the US) is quite clear that the President alone has command of the US armed forces.
    Can Congress not pass a resolution to take us out of war at any time? Yes the President has command of the troops but that is checked by Congressional authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    If there has been a threat to the rule of law here, it seems clear to me that that threat is coming from the courts and the Congress via FISA - not from the current President.
    If FISA does so plainly what you say, why has the executive branch not challenged it as unconstitutional infringement on it's power?

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    If one does not accept that the President has such authority, one must also confront the fact that no new authority is being claimed here. In fact, the authority claimed is far less intrusive than what has been claimed by past Presidents with far less justification.
    So because this President is doing this less than others, than it's ok?

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Did you hear the President's speech in Kansas Monday? This is how he explained what they've been doing.
    Presidents have made claims before (Im sure you can come up with an example), that doesnt make them true or legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    So how exactly is one to prove what one does not know? If there is a specific allegation of an abuse, an investigation should happen.
    That is my point, we don't know (and at least a majority of Congress - who represent you and I) didn't know either. (And if we are doing something illegal, we shouldn't wait until we have a specific allegation to stop doing it.)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    According to what has been disclosed by the President and others in his administration, the calls being monitored are those that originate outside the US and in some cases have endpoints in the US. To put a tap on your phone to monitor further calls on your line, they would in fact need a warrant. That has never been at issue here. You raise a case that is outside the boundary of the NSA surveillance as it has been described.
    If the calls originate outside the US (i.e. the terrorist calls my cell) and I am in the US, then that is exactly the scenario where the eavesdropping could occur?? (I agree with what you say on the tap issue, but eavesdropping electronically is essentially putting a tap on my line isnt?)

    "We must be able to quickly detect when someone linked to al-Qaida is communicating with someone inside of America," he said. [Pres. Bush]
    link
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #445  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    But that is kind of the point here...you and I wouldn't even be having this conversation if it wasnt reported in the news.
    On the contrary - most media reports seem to be deliberately implying that this is "domestic spying". I have read no reporting indicating US citizens are on the foreign end of these conversations.
    Are you saying that in the constitutional role of providing national defense, the President can violate constitutional provisions for us as citizens? I would argue that the Presidents executive power under the Article 2 does not allow him to violate the Bill of Rights that you and I have protection under without due process of law.
    You know as well as I that rights are not absolute. Does the owner of a factory have the right to not have OSHA pop in and inspect his facilities without a warrant?
    Congress still has authorizational oversight to go to war and Congress controls spending during war. Congress could pull the plug on military spending in Iraq which would effectively require the President withdraw troops so to say that the founding fathers apportioned national defense just to the President is not quite as convincing. (And since you brought up the founding father's argument, they also did not want the executive branch to be able to circumvent the law of the land...i.e. no king)
    Thank you. That's what I've been saying all along. The Congress can de-fund the Executive. They have the power of the purse - not the power to micro-manage the Executive. Intentionally so.
    Do you really think that the NSA would destroy all the evidence that it had gathered if they knew they were on a plot to bring down a bridge or something? (and even if it did, lets fix the law instead of ignore it.)
    That's my understanding of how the law reads. It's stupid, but that's how it reads. My point is that the Congress is not the Constitutional instrument for making those decisions - and this is a beautiful example of exactly why.
    Well, that is his interpretation.
    Indeed. When someone offers a more compelling alternative interpretation then we can debate it.
    Can Congress not pass a resolution to take us out of war at any time? Yes the President has command of the troops but that is checked by Congressional authority.
    Absolutely. That is the check on Executive power constructed by the Founders.
    If FISA does so plainly what you say, why has the executive branch not challenged it as unconstitutional infringement on it's power?
    A fair question I do not have an answer for. Perhaps because no President has had his authority to conduct national security operations so directly challenged before now (since FISA, anyway).
    So because this President is doing this less than others, than it's ok?
    So which is it? Is Bush setting a precedent or doing what others before him have done? All I was saying is that you need not be concerned about the precedent being set since that had been done many years before (by George Washington, in fact).
    Presidents have made claims before (Im sure you can come up with an example), that doesnt make them true or legal.
    It also doesn't make them untrue or illegal. In the absence of contrary evidence, does the elected leader of our country, who is accountable to the people, not deserve the benefit of the doubt?
    That is my point, we don't know (and at least a majority of Congress - who represent you and I) didn't know either. (And if we are doing something illegal, we shouldn't wait until we have a specific allegation to stop doing it.)
    Congress could stop it tomorrow (they could de-fund the entire NSA if they chose) if they really thought what was happening was illegal. How many other classified operations that may theoretically, very debatably, yet very justifiably violate someone's civil rights should we expose to the enemy? We don't know much because the sources and methods are classified and must remain so. The appropriate safeguards are in place (Justice Dept. review, congressional notifications) for a classified operation.
    If the calls originate outside the US (i.e. the terrorist calls my cell) and I am in the US, then that is exactly the scenario where the eavesdropping could occur?? (I agree with what you say on the tap issue, but eavesdropping electronically is essentially putting a tap on my line isnt?)
    No - my understanding is that the "tap" is on the non-US phone line that happens to call your phone. If as a US citizen, the FBI decides they need to monitor your calls specifically, they'd need to go get a warrant.
    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. #446  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    On the contrary - most media reports seem to be deliberately implying that this is "domestic spying". I have read no reporting indicating US citizens are on the foreign end of these conversations.
    When you say foreign end, are talking about the end being in a country outside of the US? (Because on that ABC news link, Pres. Bush is specifically talking about eavsdropping on people and calls that END in the US). I would call that spying domestically if the person spied upon is in the US on his/her phone...wouldnt you?

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    You know as well as I that rights are not absolute. Does the owner of a factory have the right to not have OSHA pop in and inspect his facilities without a warrant?
    Thats quite true but the Courts have ruled that if there is due process, then its not a violation. In our case, its not the courts deciding but the executive branch...and you didnt state what you thought trumps what. Does the Pres. executive power overide your rights under the constitution (without due process)? Imagine a scenario where the government required you to have an implant put in your head to capture conversations that werent electronic (I know its reaching). What if the President began forcing people en mass to do this without court order or congressional approval all in the name of his art 2 power and congress' war resolution. Would that bother you?

    My criticism is that people are willing to give the Pres. a blank check to fight terrorism. Im not ok with that (ignoring for a second that he is doing something behind the american peoples back using a flimsy implication argument).

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Thank you. That's what I've been saying all along. The Congress can de-fund the Executive. They have the power of the purse - not the power to micro-manage the Executive.
    See we agree. However it is kind of the same thing. Congress threatens to scale back funding if troops dont come home. The Pres. agrees. Isnt that micro-managing?

    Additionally, the problem (IMO) is that it still doesnt make it legal (to wiretap) and Congress wont do that because it would be political suicide.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Perhaps because no President has had his authority to conduct national security operations so directly challenged before now (since FISA, anyway).
    Or because it is such an overreach? ;-)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    So which is it? Is Bush setting a precedent or doing what others before him have done?
    Maybe its both (by going beyond what has been done before- warrantless physical searches v. warrantless elect. searches)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    In the absence of contrary evidence, does the elected leader of our country, who is accountable to the people, not deserve the benefit of the doubt?
    Possibly...but he wasnt going tell you was he? How would someone satisfy your burden of evidence if its done in secret. (And by not telling you...he isnt being as accountable as you say?)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Congress could stop it tomorrow (they could de-fund the entire NSA if they chose) if they really thought what was happening was illegal.
    Again...could Congress realistically/politically do that?

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    How many other classified operations that may theoretically, very debatably, yet very justifiably violate someone's civil rights should we expose to the enemy? We don't know much because the sources and methods are classified and must remain so. The appropriate safeguards are in place (Justice Dept. review, congressional notifications) for a classified operation.
    Are you clear on exactly who knew and when? Other top secret actions have the safeguards that you mentioned. Wiretapping did too until FISA was ignored. :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    No - my understanding is that the "tap" is on the non-US phone line that happens to call your phone. If as a US citizen, the FBI decides they need to monitor your calls specifically, they'd need to go get a warrant.
    Ok but we arent talking about the FBI...its the NSA. And I dont think they are physically tapping it but capturing it electronically. And isnt there an expectation of privacy when I answer my own phone?

    (My thumbs are tired!)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7. #447  
    If the taps are secret, who can prove they are only on foreign-domestic calls and data? Who can prove that they aren't tapping into domestic data and calls? Who can prove they arenít tapping Democratic leaders (Big D means the party), or peace groups? Or you or me?

    If you trust Bush, you may choose to believe that he is only tapping what he says he is tapping.

    If you don't trust Bush, how can you know the law is not being broken as bad as Nixon broke it with his illegal wire taps?
  8. #448  
    I am not saying he is or he is not using it for terrorists only. My concern is that he alone decided not to follow the FISA law that was created by Congress.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  9. #449  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    If the taps are secret, who can prove they are only on foreign-domestic calls and data? Who can prove that they aren't tapping into domestic data and calls? Who can prove they arenít tapping Democratic leaders (Big D means the party), or peace groups? Or you or me?

    If you trust Bush, you may choose to believe that he is only tapping what he says he is tapping.

    If you don't trust Bush, how can you know the law is not being broken as bad as Nixon broke it with his illegal wire taps?
    Who can prove the President doesn't know the truth about UFOs? Who can prove Bush really doesn't have black helicopters following me around?

    The President is doing the job we elected him to do. If he is violating his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, we, through our elected Representatives, have recourse.

    People keep bringing up Nixon - you all do remember the part where he resigned from office, right???
    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...
  10. #450  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I am not saying he is or he is not using it for terrorists only. My concern is that he alone decided not to follow the FISA law that was created by Congress.
    Note that if the actual monitoring happens outside the US, FISA does not even apply. Obviously we do not know for sure where it is being done - however you seem to assume he is not following an applicable law when that may not even be the case.
    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...
  11. #451  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    When you say foreign end, are talking about the end being in a country outside of the US? (Because on that ABC news link, Pres. Bush is specifically talking about eavsdropping on people and calls that END in the US). I would call that spying domestically if the person spied upon is in the US on his/her phone...wouldnt you?
    So if you call Pakistan that's a domestic call? Try telling that to Sprint.
    Thats quite true but the Courts have ruled that if there is due process, then its not a violation. In our case, its not the courts deciding but the executive branch...and you didnt state what you thought trumps what. Does the Pres. executive power overide your rights under the constitution (without due process)?
    Where's the due process for the company owner who must submit to a warrantless search of his property for safety violations? AFTER the search he can appeal whatever is found - just as someone who might have a conversation intercepted would have access to the courts.
    Imagine a scenario where the government required you to have an implant put in your head to capture conversations that werent electronic (I know its reaching). What if the President began forcing people en mass to do this without court order or congressional approval all in the name of his art 2 power and congress' war resolution. Would that bother you?
    I didn't even complain when I got my implant, why would I care about someone else's? (seriously - that is so far afield of any realistic scenario I wouldn't even know where to start...)
    My criticism is that people are willing to give the Pres. a blank check to fight terrorism. Im not ok with that (ignoring for a second that he is doing something behind the american peoples back using a flimsy implication argument).
    He is conducting foreign intelligence surveillance utilizing all the safeguards available in a secret operation (Justice review, congressional briefing) - what should he do, tell Al Qaeda what he's doing and how they could best avoid detection? He does not have a blank check - to the extent he has an abundance of authority, it is because the Congress gave it to him in their resolution to use all neccessary force. If they don't like what he's doing they should amend the resolution to not allow him to surveil Al Qaeda when they call the US.
    See we agree. However it is kind of the same thing. Congress threatens to scale back funding if troops dont come home. The Pres. agrees. Isnt that micro-managing?
    No - that's macro-managing, but actually I don't think our positions are as far apart as it might seem.
    Additionally, the problem (IMO) is that it still doesnt make it legal (to wiretap) and Congress wont do that because it would be political suicide.
    Because it would be wrong and the voters would rightly punish them for their stupidity.
    Or because it is such an overreach? ;-)
    I thought we'd already determined that this was relatively mild in comparison to past expressions of Presidential war powers (the forced internment of Japanese Americans being a really, really obvious example).
    Maybe its both (by going beyond what has been done before- warrantless physical searches v. warrantless elect. searches)
    The President is getting FISA warrants for domestic cases - a fact I have pointed out previously - in record numbers. The controversy is over international calls. Only international calls.
    Possibly...but he wasnt going tell you was he? How would someone satisfy your burden of evidence if its done in secret. (And by not telling you...he isnt being as accountable as you say?)
    He is telling Congress. He is telling career people at Justice. Anyone involved in the program is protected by whistle-blower statutes if they feel they have something to report. The head of the NSA said the other day they have not have a single inspector general complaint about how this program is being administered. He also quite definitively stated that the source for the original NY Times story was not an NSA employee (I don't know how he would or would not know, but he was clear on this point).
    Are you clear on exactly who knew and when? Other top secret actions have the safeguards that you mentioned. Wiretapping did too until FISA was ignored. :-)
    All I know is what I've read in the public domain. Since the administration has first-hand knowledge of the program, I naturally give more weight to what they say as opposed to the NY Times or other media outlets that seem to be reporting out of ignorance and possibly even bias. That's not to say I accept unquestioningly everything Bush says. Reasonable people can see the difference between giving primary sources more weight when evaluating something like this and blind acceptance.
    Ok but we arent talking about the FBI...its the NSA. And I dont think they are physically tapping it but capturing it electronically. And isnt there an expectation of privacy when I answer my own phone?
    Actually, I assume FBI carries out the FISA surveillance where warrants are obtained since it is within the US and well within their jurisdiction.

    I would say that if you are talking to a member of Al Qaeda, no, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for that conversation.
    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. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #452  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I am not saying he is or he is not using it for terrorists only. My concern is that he alone decided not to follow the FISA law that was created by Congress.
    No, not he alone. Members of congress were briefed (some even wrote letters to themselves in an CYA attempt). I do not buy the "it was so secret I could not tell" story, they are the elected representatives, it is their place to say something if they feel it is against the law. Recent articles also infer that the senior members of the FISA court were briefed, they also have the responsiblility to say something if it is against the law. I am not giving the president a free pass, but others were aware.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  13. #453  
    the same senator who alegedly wrote notes to himself and Cheney APROVED of all the things he was briefed on. This has been verified by other senators who were in these briefings. Not one senator raised ANY objections to these spying activities. A private note to Cheney doesn't mean much. If he had objections to this he could have brought it up at these meetings. That is the appropriate method. No one did. There is no way of verifying if his notes to himself were post dated for effect.
  14. #454  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Note that if the actual monitoring happens outside the US, FISA does not even apply. Obviously we do not know for sure where it is being done - however you seem to assume he is not following an applicable law when that may not even be the case.
    I may be completely confused on this but *some of this surveillance must be happening in the US or there would be no discussion about FISA being ignored.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #455  
    Quote Originally Posted by xort
    the same senator who alegedly wrote notes to himself and Cheney APROVED of all the things he was briefed on. This has been verified by other senators who were in these briefings. Not one senator raised ANY objections to these spying activities. A private note to Cheney doesn't mean much. If he had objections to this he could have brought it up at these meetings. That is the appropriate method. No one did. There is no way of verifying if his notes to himself were post dated for effect.
    It does not matter to me if he wrote the note as he was being briefed. It is his responsibility to stop any act that is not legal. I would not let my kid get away with just writing a note saying I am not comfortable with doing drive-by shootings as he is riding around with a bunch of thugs who are shooting at people. He knows more about the process than we do since he was briefed by the president and not by NY times, so if it was not an issue with him then it should be a non-issue with him now.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  16. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #456  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I may be completely confused on this but *some of this surveillance must be happening in the US or there would be no discussion about FISA being ignored.
    From what I understand, again just from the media, is that the calls are international but one party may be in the US, or may be a citizen. The media continues to use the term domestic spying, however I think that is them trying to sell papers. Domestic is contained within the US, international is between more than one nation.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  17. #457  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    So if you call Pakistan that's a domestic call? Try telling that to Sprint.
    I don't think that is what I am trying to say (I thought we were talking about calls from terrorists into the US. That is how I have seen them be categorized (domestic calls because the receiving party is in the US.) I haven't seen the legal definition anywhere, have you?

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Where's the due process for the company owner who must submit to a warrantless search of his property for safety violations?
    Arguably the due process is that the courts have already ruled that for OSHA to do it's job, it does not have to announce it's inspection. What if the unannounced inspections werent working and Pres Bush said "Lets ignore OSHA requirements in order to do a better job." Would you support that decision?

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    AFTER the search he can appeal whatever is found - just as someone who might have a conversation intercepted would have access to the courts.
    Maybe-but as it is right now, only the NSA and the Pres would know if you had been surveilled. You wouldn't ever know unless charges were brought or your property seized.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I didn't even complain when I got my implant, why would I care about someone else's? (seriously - that is so far afield of any realistic scenario I wouldn't even know where to start...)
    I did say it was a stretch ;-)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    He is conducting foreign intelligence surveillance utilizing all the safeguards available in a secret operation (Justice review, congressional briefing) - what should he do, tell Al Qaeda what he's doing and how they could best avoid detection?
    Where is the judicial review if he is not utilizing FISA? Is he briefing all of Congress (does anyone know who actually was briefed?) I agree that we want the war on terror to be successful and I want them to catch Al Qaeda...I just want the law to be followed.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    He does not have a blank check - to the extent he has an abundance of authority, it is because the Congress gave it to him in their resolution to use all neccessary force.
    Ok, so you buy the implication argument? Don't you think that is pretty weak? Power to conduct the war on terror =warrantless wiretaps in the U.S. <--I can't imagine that too many senators thought that is what they were giving the Pres.

    Besides-If the law requires warrants to wiretap (because there is a constitutional right to privacy) and Congress said specifically (you can ignore FISA with this war resolution) it still might not be legal because Congress through legislation cannot supercede the constitution. That would require an amendment. So under my reasoning, even if Congress actually intended for the President to ignore FISA with the war resolution, it STILL wouldn't be constitutitional (or illegal.) IMHO

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    If they don't like what he's doing they should amend the resolution to not allow him to surveil Al Qaeda when they call the US.
    Sure they could do that (and they might depending on what happens at the hearings.)

    But remember the executive argument: the President already has this power because FISA is an unconstitutional infringement on the executives constitional power.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I thought we'd already determined that this was relatively mild in comparison to past expressions of Presidential war powers (the forced internment of Japanese Americans being a really, really obvious example).
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    The President is getting FISA warrants for domestic cases - a fact I have pointed out previously - in record numbers. The controversy is over international calls. Only international calls.
    I am still not clear what the legal definition for an international call is (seems to be a disconnect when it comes to someone calling the US. maybe not.)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    He is telling Congress.
    Not all of Congress right? And like I said, which members of Congress were told?

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I would say that if you are talking to a member of Al Qaeda, no, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for that conversation.
    Why should I lose constitutional protection even when I didn't do anything intentional (besides answer my telephone).
    Last edited by t2gungho; 01/26/2006 at 02:07 PM.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  18.    #458  
    I admit I haven't kept up with the legalities all have brought to this thread. Seems wiretaps have been used to 'tap' a call to or from a known terrorist or al qaida memeber. Let us assume Bush is legally wrong in doing this. Let me ask this question, shouldn't we make this legal?
  19. #459  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    I admit I haven't kept up with the legalities all have brought to this thread. Seems wiretaps have been used to 'tap' a call to or from a known terrorist or al qaida memeber. Let us assume Bush is legally wrong in doing this. Let me ask this question, shouldn't we make this legal?
    I think we should do something to make it legal. Expand FISA, make it easier for the warrant (i.e. lower the standard), something.

    There is obvious utility in being able to get intel this way.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  20. #460  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    From what I understand, again just from the media, is that the calls are international but one party may be in the US, or may be a citizen. The media continues to use the term domestic spying, however I think that is them trying to sell papers. Domestic is contained within the US, international is between more than one nation.
    You may be right but then it begs the question: if this is all true, then why doesn't Pres. Bush say this when he is out defending this policy (i.e. all the calls we listen to are international and therefore not constitutionally protected). It would seem to end the discussion (and concern) right there. I would argue that because he hasn't said this (I don't think he has), then it may not be completely accurate.

    I am sure when the hearings come out (and AG Gonzales is in the hotseat) definitions will become a little more clear.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

Posting Permissions