Page 3 of 28 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 546
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    No, how bout this, prove it hasn't happened. Imagine if you will a president that can tap any pols phone. Just one whisper in an ear can change a vote(Blackmail). Imagine if you will journalists phones being tapped. So to you, I say prove they have tapped just terrorists or people with terrorist links(This is the b8tch of it, no oversight). If they are in fact tapping just terrorists phones then I would see no reason as to why they could not get a court to okay it.
    Prove a negative? Great argument there.

    This surveillance is overseen by Justice and congress is briefed. There is accountability here. Providing a list of people under surveillance is completely idiotic.
    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...
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Trying to get my arms around who thinks we have the right to do what...

    Does this seem like an accurate breakdown of the debate?

    According to our laws (not considering any international agreements here), this is how we determine who the NSA can and can't wiretap.
    US Citizen

    Dom to Dom -- FISA '78: Requires warrant; No warrant: violates 4th Amendment; No arguments here
    Int'l to Int'l -- ??? No restrictions/ requires warrant/ covered by Congress mil action approval ???
    Dom to Int'l -- Administration: Because this is SigInt and involves "international enemies", Congressional approval covers it; Critics: Requires warrant just like Dom to Dom


    Non US Citizen

    Dom to Dom -- No restrictions
    Int'l to Int'l -- No restrictions
    Dom to Int'l -- No restrictions
    Yeah, that looks pretty good. Could you cite for me. If that is the case indeed then I will let off of Bush, but I would like this changed, Oversight through the FISA court would make me happy.
  3. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Providing a list of people under surveillance is completely idiotic.
    You leave it in FISA.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    On further thought, didn't he cite the Iraq war as the justification/authority for it?
    Can't say that isn't one of the reasons. But amongst the zillion articles on this, I read two factors:

    1) Those who are known terrorist, those with links to known terrorist, or those who were dealing with known terrorists.

    2) Roving wiretaps.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You leave it in FISA.
    Remember Colleen Rowley, the heroic FBI agent that blew the whistle on 9/11? One of the problems she reported was the time it took to get a FISA warrant. Does the concept of having a FISA warrant arrive a week after Tampa is toast make you happy?

    FISA was drafted in the days of huge state actors that were spying on us. Things have changed. There was oversight...Congress was notified. W has a battalion of lawyers that maintain the legality of this process. And it is really big of you to offer W a pass if this meets your standards. I'm sure he'll sleep better.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Yeah, that looks pretty good. Could you cite for me. If that is the case indeed then I will let off of Bush, but I would like this changed, Oversight through the FISA court would make me happy.
    I don't have any citations. This is what I'm gathering from my reading of NYT, CNN articles.

    I just appreciate a good argument when folks are debating the same issue. It appears that the real point of contention is in the US Citizen/Dom to Int'l arena. Administration says that they can tap because they were permitted by Congressional military action approval. Critics say that this arena should be covered under FISA authority only.

    We can't be drawn into the "the MAN is going to listen into my unpopular political rhetoric between Berkley and Madison" argument as that is a 4th Amendment issue and not the point here. Let's define the argument and break the right one apart.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Remember Colleen Rowley, the heroic FBI agent that blew the whistle on 9/11? One of the problems she reported was the time it took to get a FISA warrant. Does the concept of having a FISA warrant arrive a week after Tampa is toast make you happy?

    FISA was drafted in the days of huge state actors that were spying on us. Things have changed. There was oversight...Congress was notified. W has a battalion of lawyers that maintain the legality of this process. And it is really big of you to offer W a pass if this meets your standards. I'm sure he'll sleep better.
    Warrants are/can be retroactive.
  8. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    I'm sure he'll sleep better.
    I bet he will.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Warrants are/can be retroactive.
    ?

    What good is a "retroactive" warrant when Tampa has been rendered radioactive? How do they help in a rapidly evolving situation?
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Warrants are/can be retroactive.
    Does that mean that they can wiretap today and get warrant to do it next week? So both sides are happy?
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Yeah, that looks pretty good. Could you cite for me. If that is the case indeed then I will let off of Bush, but I would like this changed, Oversight through the FISA court would make me happy.
    Here you go:

    The president spoke not long after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Congress had given Bush authority to spy on suspected terrorists in this country in legislation passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

    Bush and other officials have said the program involved monitoring phone calls and e-mails of individuals in this country believed to be plotting with terrorists overseas.

    Bush emphasized that only international calls were monitored without court order - those placed from within the United States and going overseas, or those placed from other countries to individuals living in this country.

    He stressed that calls placed and received within the United States would be monitored as has long been the case, after an order is granted by a secret court under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.


    One of the principal provisions of the Patriot Act permitted the government to gain warrants in cases involving investigations into suspected terrorists in the United States - an expansion of powers previously limited to intelligence cases.

    http://www.katu.com/stories/81864.html
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    We can't be drawn into the "the MAN is going to listen into my unpopular political rhetoric between Berkley and Madison" argument as that is a 4th Amendment issue and not the point here.
    Without this the other side has no argument, though.
    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. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Dom to Dom -- No restrictions
    Only one nit here... I think communications that start and end in the US always require a warrant to tap irrespective of the nationality of the people involved.
    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...
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Only one nit here... I think communications that start and end in the US always require a warrant to tap irrespective of the nationality of the people involved.
    Thanks, I think you're right.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  15. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Does that mean that they can wiretap today and get warrant to do it next week? So both sides are happy?
    They already do this! This why I don't understand.
  16. #56  
    did you see my post following that one that answered your question about Bush and AlaskanDad's statement?
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    They already do this! [get warrants after the fact] This why I don't understand.
    I don't get that either. What's the judge going to do, say "no"?
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  18. #58  
    <<Only one nit here... I think communications that start and end in the US always require a warrant to tap irrespective of the nationality of the people involved.>>

    Hmmm... so it comes down to who dials and who hangs up first???? That's dumb. What's the difference who hangs up first??

    Are you saying it must both start and stop (hang-up, or is it whoever says "goodbye" first?) in the US... [U]





    But what if the call starts and stops in the US- but is not by US citizens, and how would you know if they are citizens 'til you hear someone speak and identify them to see if they are US citizens, or visitors, or illegals, or whatever???
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by duanedude1
    <<Only one nit here... I think communications that start and end in the US always require a warrant to tap irrespective of the nationality of the people involved.>>

    Hmmm... so it comes down to who dials and who hangs up first???? That's dumb. What's the difference who hangs up first??

    Are you saying it must both start and stop (hang-up, or is it whoever says "goodbye" first?) in the US... [U]
    No no no. A call that has a US point and an international point. Who originates the communication is irrelevant.
    But what if the call starts and stops in the US- but is not by US citizens, and how would you know if they are citizens 'til you hear someone speak and identify them to see if they are US citizens, or visitors, or illegals, or whatever???
    Because the tapping is not random. It is tapping of known, suspected terrorists communications. At any rate, the nationality of the suspect is irrelevant in this case as the communication is international.
    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...
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    did you see my post following that one that answered your question about Bush and AlaskanDad's statement?
    I did but it doesn't anything to persuade me. I does not cite that their is a law or absence of a law regarding those sorts of phone calls. As I said, if AlaskanDad's holds true then........ But after this is resorted I would like this changed so it is routed through FISA.
Page 3 of 28 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions