Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 1722232425262728 LastLast
Results 521 to 540 of 546
  1. #521  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    So who do you trust? Just civil rights lawyers (no political motivations there...) with blogs?
    Im confused on what you are saying here.

    Are you saying that civil rights lawyers have political leanings one way or another (or just the ones arguing against warrantless wiretaps in this scenario?)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  2. #522  
    On TV today I heard the vice co-chairperson (it was a woman) for the Dem Party state that Bush was acting illegally with his "Domestic surveillance" and she emphasized Domestic. The interviewer called her on it clarifying that it was international calls the originated or terminated outside of the US, but she refused to acknowledge that fact.

    It is one thing to want to improve the system to add additional safe guards, or to question the legality of an action to make sure power is not being abused, but she literally twisted the situation to purposely give a false impression of the situation and refused to acknowledge the facts when pressed.

    To me that is a prime example of a person in an influential position playing politics for party gain at the risk of endangering our nation and the average American person.
  3. #523  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Im confused on what you are saying here.

    Are you saying that civil rights lawyers have political leanings one way or another (or just the ones arguing against warrantless wiretaps in this scenario?)
    I'm saying that civil rights lawyers are capable of holding a bias. I'm saying that they are not necessarily apolitical. I'm saying they are unaccountable for their positions. That's all I'm saying.
    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.    #524  
    Whether the Bush was within the law or outside the law, one thing is for certain, whoever 'leaked' the wiretapping is up for some time in jail. I hope that someone goes to jail soon.

    CIA head says revelation of wiretapping was severe.
  5. #525  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Whether the Bush was within the law or outside the law, one thing is for certain, whoever 'leaked' the wiretapping is up for some time in jail. I hope that someone goes to jail soon.

    CIA head says revelation of wiretapping was severe.
    Would your opinion change at all if (assuming for argument's sake) that this decision to ignore the FISA requirement is a judged as being unconstitutional?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6.    #526  
    It absolutely would not change my mind a bit. Look at all of the ambiguity right here in this thread. We are all speculating our opinion on the legalities. No one will know unless a judge decides on it. What we do know is a vital form of information in the form of terrorist's communication was ruined by the leaker. I would reasonably think that is illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Would your opinion change at all if (assuming for argument's sake) that this decision to ignore the FISA requirement is a judged as being unconstitutional?
  7. #527  
    I don't mind having to use FISA. I don't mind having to have a warrant. In fact I like the idea of the accountability and being able to track our activity. But I do have an issue when I heard three times in interviews from Dems after the State of the Union address from the likes of Nancy, Kerry, etc... that there is no security risk in taking 72 hours to get a warrant PRIOR to being able to listen to a phone call to AQ current #2 guy of the day that happened 70 hours AGO.

    At the moment, from the reading I have done on this (and I do not pretend it has been exhaustive but it has been extensive) I personally do believe that what the did was legal. It was not a Watergate situation because I do not believe Nixon advised leaders in Congress / Senate of his surveillance activities while he was doing it. This was not done in secret.

    If it does prove unconstitutional, which again I personally don't think it is because of the factor of international origin or termination of the call, I think with the case law on the books now, it would be hard to charge criminal charges for it. Obviously not impossible, but very hard pressed to present a convicting case. It would have more political benefit for those wanting to nail Bush on ANYTHING the can just because they hate Bush, more than any legitimate legal standing.

    There needs to a balance. If there are concerns, then pass laws to govern the changes that want/need to be made. But there has to be a way to act immediately. Even if that is tapping an international call then having to apply for a warrant within 24-72 hours of the activity to hold the action and those doing it with accountability.

    .......Just ramblings of MHO......
  8. #528  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    It absolutely would not change my mind a bit. Look at all of the ambiguity right here in this thread. We are all speculating our opinion on the legalities. No one will know unless a judge decides on it. What we do know is a vital form of information in the form of terrorist's communication was ruined by the leaker. I would reasonably think that is illegal.
    Just for arguments sake, how do we know that Al Queda didnt know that we were or had the power to listen to international calls coming and going outside the US? I see this listed as the reason why it was so bad that it was leaked but IF the President had the authority and power to do this all along, and past presidents have done this, then whose to say that AQ wasn't expecting them to be listening after 9/11 anyway?

    Am I giving AQ too much credit?--maybe. But I haven't seen any proof that AQ had no knowledge that we couldn't eavesdrop on them? Thoughts?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  9.    #529  
    I agree they knew we had the capability, but they probably had no idea how we found out about the Brooklyn Bridge attack. There may be other attacks that didn't come to fruition that we'll never know about. They know now. AQ will now be extremely careful about communicating.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Just for arguments sake, how do we know that Al Queda didnt know that we were or had the power to listen to international calls coming and going outside the US? I see this listed as the reason why it was so bad that it was leaked but IF the President had the authority and power to do this all along, and past presidents have done this, then whose to say that AQ wasn't expecting them to be listening after 9/11 anyway?

    Am I giving AQ too much credit?--maybe. But I haven't seen any proof that AQ had no knowledge that we couldn't eavesdrop on them? Thoughts?
  10. #530  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Just for arguments sake, how do we know that Al Queda didnt know that we were or had the power to listen to international calls coming and going outside the US? I see this listed as the reason why it was so bad that it was leaked but IF the President had the authority and power to do this all along, and past presidents have done this, then whose to say that AQ wasn't expecting them to be listening after 9/11 anyway?

    Am I giving AQ too much credit?--maybe. But I haven't seen any proof that AQ had no knowledge that we couldn't eavesdrop on them? Thoughts?
    The funny thing about surveillance is that eventually people (even those fully aware they might be watched) will get careless and act as if they aren't being observed - that is unless something happens to remind them to keep operational security front and center.
    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. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #531  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    The funny thing about surveillance is that eventually people (even those fully aware they might be watched) will get careless and act as if they aren't being observed - that is unless something happens to remind them to keep operational security front and center.
    Driving down the road at 80, and someone flashes their headlights coming in the other direction I tend to slow down. I know the speed limit is 65, and I know that police use radar, but I only slowed down because the other driver reminded me that a cop may be over the next hill. I top the hill and sure enough there is a cop clocking speeders. So if not reminded I would have been caught speeding. Same principle applies here.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  12. #532  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Driving down the road at 80, and someone flashes their headlights coming in the other direction I tend to slow down. I know the speed limit is 65, and I know that police use radar, but I only slowed down because the other driver reminded me that a cop may be over the next hill. I top the hill and sure enough there is a cop clocking speeders. So if not reminded I would have been caught speeding. Same principle applies here.
    Maybe. I am not quite sure the same principle applies (to assume that Al Queda and speed violators act the same might be disingenuous.)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/po...rtner=homepage
    Last week, the CIA director, Porter Goss, complained that unauthorized disclosures in the news media had harmed national security, but the general was less pointed in his comments today. Asked whether national security had been harmed by The New York Times's disclosure of the warrantless N.S.A. program, - General Hayden said that it would be "very, very difficult for me to answer that."

    The Post reported that fewer than 10 American citizens or residents a year had aroused sufficient suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, a further step requiring a warrant from a federal judge.
    IF in fact only 10 people per year (or lets say 100) aroused suspicion, would anyone be opposed to getting a warrant first? (I only bring this up because if only 10 people per year are at the threshold for domestic spying, why not get the warrants 72 hours after the fact?)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  13. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #533  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Maybe. I am not quite sure the same principle applies (to assume that Al Queda and speed violators act the same might be disingenuous.)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/po...rtner=homepage


    IF in fact only 10 people per year (or lets say 100) aroused suspicion, would anyone be opposed to getting a warrant first? (I only bring this up because if only 10 people per year are at the threshold for domestic spying, why not get the warrants 72 hours after the fact?)
    I know it may be oversimplification, but that is human nature. You will be a little more carefull when you are reminded that you are being watched.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  14. #534  
    Did anyone see 'Face the Nation' with Tim Russert this morning? He showed a video of a speech President Bush made in April 2004, in which he states that wiretaps need court approval.

    link (I know it's probably a left leaning site, but Russert played the video on NBC this morning.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pres. Bush
    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 were talking about chasing down terrorists, were talking about getting a court order before we do so. Its 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.

    direct link to video

    Here is a link to the show (kind of cool that you can watch the whole thing over the web now.)

    Sunday, February 12
    Peter Hoekstra, Jane Harman, Pat Roberts & Tom Daschle

    The debate over intelligence intensifies. This Sunday's "Meet the Press with Tim Russert" features a joint interview with four congressional leaders who received briefings from the White House on the NSA Surveillance program before the story became public. What information was shared? When and in what form? We'll spend the full hour talking exclusively with: Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS), former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) and the leaders of the House Intelligence Committee, Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) and Ranking Member Jane Harman (D-CA). The foursome will discuss the controversy over the constitutional, legal and political ramifications of the domestic surveillance program.
    At the very least, it seems to be inconsistant with what he is saying now about his authority to circumvent FISA. At the very most, he is misrepresenting himself if in 2004 he says we can't wiretap without court order yet in 2002 he began the wiretapping.

    Thoughts?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  15. #535  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    At the very least, it seems to be inconsistant with what he is saying now about his authority to circumvent FISA. At the very most, he is misrepresenting himself if in 2004 he says we can't wiretap without court order yet in 2002 he began the wiretapping.

    Thoughts?
    We dealt with this earlier in this thread. Bush was speaking at the time about the Patriot Act and the roving wiretaps allowed under USA PATRIOT. The assertion that he was speaking about what was a top secret international intelligence gathering operation is a laughable attempt at "gotcha".
    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...
  16. #536  
    Sorry (I can't believe I missed it.)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    The assertion that he was speaking about what was a top secret international intelligence gathering operation is a laughable attempt at "gotcha".
    Of course he wouldn't be talking about his own secret wiretapping order. (why would he? He wouldn't talk about a program that he wants to be secret?)

    Can you be a little more clear on how you distinguish 'top secret international intelligence gathering operation' and 'When were talking about chasing down terrorists, were talking about getting a court order before we do so.' I am having trouble distinguishing them so that they don't contradict each other.

    (Any idea what post number it was mentioned on?)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  17. #537  
    I tend to trust this guys learned opinion.


    ----------------------------------------------------
    500 show up to hear security guru

    By Tan Vinh

    Seattle Times staff reporter

    Since the disclosure last month that the government authorizes warrantless domestic spying, the water-cooler chats and classroom debates have raged over privacy and constitutional rights.

    But Bruce Schneier, the security guru who has rock-star status among crypto-philes, offered another take on the matter to a crowd of more than 500 people at the American Civil Liberties Union convention at the University of Washington on Saturday: This computer-eavesdropping stuff doesn't really work.

    "When you have computers in charge telling people what to do, you have bad security," said Schneier, who worked for the U.S. Department of Defense in the 1980s.

    Schneier, who won't reveal what he did for the Defense Department other than to say it's related to communications and security, said the domestic-eavesdropping program relies on computers to pick up words such as "bomb," "kill" or "president" in conversations and flag the participating parties as potential suspects.

    Last month, the Bush administration acknowledged authorizing the National Security Agency to intercept e-mails and phone calls without warrants in cases where one party is outside the United States.

    "Technology is static," Schneier said. "It doesn't adapt. But people can adapt to whatever is going on," he said. "You are better off" hiring more FBI agents to gather intelligence.

    The security is not worth the cost because the computers generate too many false alarms, Schneier said.

    "Replacing people with technology hardly ever works."

    With his thinning hair in a ponytail, Schneier looked more like a hippie than a cryptography expert whose books have gained cult status and whose appearances draw standing-room-only crowds.

    Here to speak about the nation's concern with security since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the 43-year old Minneapolis resident suggested everyone step back and realize "terrorist attacks are rare. They hardly ever happen."

    A funny thing happens when people get scared, he said. People give up their freedom or liberties to authority. And politicians create "movie plots" of attacks at maybe the Super Bowl or the New York subways, as if terrorists couldn't attack another event or the subway stations in Boston, he said.

    "Security that requires us to guess right" is not worth the cost because there are too many potential targets, he said.
    ---------------------------------------
  18. #538  
    Right. Signals intelligence is a complete waste of time. Not once has SIGINT tipped the scales of a battle...let alone assisted in national security.

    LOL! It's too bad that DA has me on his "ignore" list. He's probably too busy caring about the people in our armed forces to read what I post, anyway.
  19.    #539  
    Why would dat put you on ignore? You stalking him?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Right. Signals intelligence is a complete waste of time. Not once has SIGINT tipped the scales of a battle...let alone assisted in national security.

    LOL! It's too bad that DA has me on his "ignore" list. He's probably too busy caring about the people in our armed forces to read what I post, anyway.
  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #540  
    At least the article did accurately portray who the target was

    "Last month, the Bush administration acknowledged authorizing the National Security Agency to intercept e-mails and phone calls without warrants in cases where one party is outside the United States."

    Everyone has their own opinon on which security feature is the most effective, cost effective etc. I see where he is coming from, but I also know that signals intelligence hs proven effective in the past and sometimes there just is not enough trained bodies to fulfill every need.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"

Posting Permissions