Page 6 of 28 FirstFirst 123456789101116 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 546
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Yes, President George W. Bush should.
    He should have power to do what is needed, but also should be accountable. There should be briefings on what is going on. Documentation of what is being conducted. Available for review by a bi-part top secret level congressional committee. And something like what NRG stated, can act now and must submit to FISA withing 48 or 72 hours. etc.....
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You forgot include the what followed that as I think there are some good points:

    But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence 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.

    Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs.

    We had real problems chasing paper -- following paper trails of people. The law was just such that we could run down a problem for a crooked businessman; we couldn't use the same tools necessary to chase down a terrorist. That doesn't make any sense. And sometimes the use of paper trails and paper will lead local first responders and local officials to a potential terrorist. We're going to have every tool, is what I'm telling you, available for our people who I expect to do their job, and you expect to do their jobs.

    We had tough penalties for drug traffickers; we didn't have as tough a penalty for terrorists. That didn't make any sense. The true threat to the 21st century is the fact somebody is trying to come back into our country and hurt us. And we ought to be able to at least send a signal through law that says we're going to treat you equally as tough as we do mobsters and drug lords.

    There's other things we need to do. We need administrative subpoenas in the law. This was not a part of the recent Patriot Act. By the way, the reason I bring up the Patriot Act, it's set to expire next year. I'm starting a campaign to make it clear to members of Congress it shouldn't expire. It shouldn't expire, for the security of our country. (Applause.)

    Administrative subpoenas mean it is -- speeds up the process whereby people can gain information to go after terrorists. Administrative subpoenas I guess is kind of an ominous sounding word, but it is, to put everybody's mind at ease about administrative subpoenas -- we use them to catch crooked doctors today. It's a tool for people to chase down medical fraud. And it certainly makes sense to me that if we're using it as a tool to chase medical fraud cases, we certainly ought to use it as a tool to chase potential terrorists.

    I'll tell you another interesting part of the law that needs to be changed. Judges need greater authority to deny bail to terrorists. Judges have that authority in many cases like -- again, I keep citing drug offenses, but the Congress got tough on drug offenders a while ago and gave judges leeway to deny bail. They don't have that same authority to deny bail to terrorists now. I've got to tell you, it doesn't make any sense to me that it is very conceivable that we haul in somebody who is dangerous to America and then they are able to spring bail and out they go.

    It's hard to assure the American people that we've given tools to law enforcement that they need if somebody has gone through all the work to chase down a potential terrorist, and they haul them in front of a court and they pay bail, and it adios. It just doesn't make any sense.
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    You forgot include the what followed that as I think there are some good points:
    "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."

    Yesterday bush said he doesn't have to go through FISA to spy on Americans. That's BS. Fisa will approve retroactively.

    The point of the older bush quote is to show him flat lying.
  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Gonzalez's point is that the Congress did give the President authority to engage in military action against the terrorists (they are authorized to do this). To continue with the Admin's logic, SigInt in foreign territory is military action. Phone calls or email with a foot in foreign territory are in keeping with Congress' authorization.
    I agree up until this point. If a call originates from the U.S. to a foreign country, the monitoring of that call is required to have a warrant. To take the authorization to go to war to imply that the President can unilaterally set aside the constitution is not logical. Congress could say to the President that starting tomorrow, you can put people to death for bouncing a check. That would not be legal because it is contrary to the 8th amendment regardless of what Congress authorizes.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Warrants via FISA are required when not covered by other authorizations. Ergo, warrants weren't required for the eavesdropping they did.
    I like the argument, but it assumes that:

    1) Congress made an authorization like the one you stated (Im not sure that they did based on Pelosi's statement that a committee was briefed and then not allowed to discuss it under secrecy.)

    2) Even if Congress did make such an authorization, that authorization cannot violate the constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    I'm sure my senator wasn't voting for flying a Predator into the right hand of a guy aiming an RPG at a Bradley, either. No one votes for the specifics (shouldn't really be claimed by the Administration either) but for the principles. Action was authorized, action was taken. Were the two a good fit? We'll see...
    Where to draw the line is a good argument to make...however, going after the Taliban and domestic spying without warrants seems to be an easy line to draw.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    This should be investigated behind closed doors by classified, trusted (by both sides) advisors. If we don't have a fit with what was done and what should have been done, let's fix it.
    I understand the need to keep things secret because of the ongoing war effort...but I am not in favor of suspending constitutional rights. When it gets to that point, than IMO we haven't done enough to find a better solution.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    "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."

    Yesterday bush said he doesn't have to go through FISA to spy on Americans. That's BS. Fisa will approve retroactively.

    The point of the older bush quote is to show him flat lying.
    That would depend....before he was talking international calls, here i believe he is talking about domestic calls. Then there is no contradiction.
  5. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I believe the difference is domestic issues versus international.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Yes, President George W. Bush should.
    You do realize that this stance is contrary to the constitution right? (and Pres. Bush himself does not support this. )

    I am all for supporting the President lawfully. I cannot ignore when someone goes beyond the law regardless of the political party (ATM-I viewed you as a staunch conservative...and your position of having one person solely be in charge of a big government machine seems contrary to that.)

    If you think it's a 'good' thing to allow one person absolute power within a democratic system of government, then the only person that I would support in that position would be Jesus Christ. Anyone short of that is going to make a mistake in judgment.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I agree up until this point. If a call originates from the U.S. to a foreign country, the monitoring of that call is required to have a warrant. To take the authorization to go to war to imply that the President can unilaterally set aside the constitution is not logical. Congress could say to the President that starting tomorrow, you can put people to death for bouncing a check. That would not be legal because it is contrary to the 8th amendment regardless of what Congress authorizes.

    I like the argument, but it assumes that:

    1) Congress made an authorization like the one you stated (Im not sure that they did based on Pelosi's statement that a committee was briefed and then not allowed to discuss it under secrecy.)

    2) Even if Congress did make such an authorization, that authorization cannot violate the constitution.

    Where to draw the line is a good argument to make...however, going after the Taliban and domestic spying without warrants seems to be an easy line to draw.

    I understand the need to keep things secret because of the ongoing war effort...but I am not in favor of suspending constitutional rights. When it gets to that point, than IMO we haven't done enough to find a better solution.
    All well and good as long as we are talking domestic issues. Once it becomes international there is another set of laws and rules. The precedent was set with Echelon.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    All well and good as long as we are talking domestic issues. Once it becomes international there is another set of laws and rules. The precedent was set with Echelon.
    Then I must be missing something. Who is making the argument that the President doesn't have the authority to monitor a foriegn phone call (meaning originating and ending in another country?)

    link

    Under the programme, Mr Bush authorised the National Security Agency (NSA) to listen in to international phone calls and intercept the international e-mails of American citizens and others inside the US without warrants from a special court.

    Normally the NSA is allowed to freely intercept only those communications that are wholly outside the US (a task in which it is helped by the British GCHQ at Cheltenham). Anything monitored domestically has to be approved by a special court known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA).

    Purely domestic calls still have to be authorised by a FISA warrant.
    Doesnt this mean that the President is listening to calls (and reading emails) originating from inside the US?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    That would depend....before he was talking international calls, here i believe he is talking about domestic calls. Then there is no contradiction.
    The contradiction is that he can and should go through FISA for either. If you can do so for one you can do so for both.
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The contradiction is that he can and should go through FISA for either. If you can do so for one you can do so for both.
    I don't know for sure, but I believe you can....but a different set of laws govern domestic to domestic calls vs international intitiated or terminated calls.
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Then I must be missing something. Who is making the argument that the President doesn't have the authority to monitor a foriegn phone call (meaning originating and ending in another country?)
    I believ Da is.
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Then I must be missing something. Who is making the argument that the President doesn't have the authority to monitor a foriegn phone call (meaning originating and ending in another country?)
    My understanding (and only that, an understanding) is that if the call originates in one country and ends in a different country then it is international. Calls originating and terminating in same country are domestic.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Then I must be missing something. Who is making the argument that the President doesn't have the authority to monitor a foriegn phone call (meaning originating and ending in another country?)
    The distinctions are:

    Completely non-domestic origin and ending: Has been secretly monitored for years.

    Originating in the US ending outside US: THIS is what the pres states he has the right to spy on without utilizing FISA.

    Originating in the US and ending in the US: So far following the protections of FISA, for now.
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The distinctions are:

    1. Completely non-domestic origin and ending: Has been secretly monitored for years.

    2. Originating in the US ending outside US: THIS is what the pres states he has the right to spy on without utilizing FISA.

    3. Originating in the US and ending in the US: So far following the protections of FISA, for now.
    That is what I thought. The ones at issue are no. 2
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    That is what I thought. The ones at issue are no. 2
    I don't think we will know an answer answer until after the investigation. Mainly due to laws and regulations that understandably may not be wise to make public.

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Update: Bipartisan consensus pushing for investigation.
    the other thing I find interesting is the investigation itself. If several of the ones who are now calling for an investigation already knew at least the basics of what was going on, why did they wait until after it went public to call for an investigation? Just to take a jab at Bush? Get their names in the headlines? Playing politics?

    Or did the NYT actually know more than Reid or Nancy did in their briefings? If this was the case, then certainly a leak investigation needs to happen at the same time.
  16. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The distinctions are:

    Completely non-domestic origin and ending: Has been secretly monitored for years.

    Originating in the US ending outside US: THIS is what the pres states he has the right to spy on without utilizing FISA.

    Originating in the US and ending in the US: So far following the protections of FISA, for now.
    Number 2 is still considered international. From my understanding it is not against the law to monitor international calls. If that is the case, then the push should be to change the law. Monitoring international calls has been going on for 15 plus years with Echelon.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Number 2 is still considered international. From my understanding it is not against the law to monitor international calls. If that is the case, then the push should be to change the law. Monitoring international calls has been going on for 15 plus years with Echelon.
    No, prior to this decision by Bush the law required to go through the FISA courts, and as has been pointed out, this can be done up to 14 days retroactively so it's not a hinderance(sp?).
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I don't think we will know an answer answer until after the investigation. Mainly due to laws and regulations that understandably may not be wise to make public.



    the other thing I find interesting is the investigation itself. If several of the ones who are now calling for an investigation already knew at least the basics of what was going on, why did they wait until after it went public to call for an investigation? Just to take a jab at Bush? Get their names in the headlines? Playing politics?

    Or did the NYT actually know more than Reid or Nancy did in their briefings? If this was the case, then certainly a leak investigation needs to happen at the same time.

    Those members involved could not say anything to anyone. One congressman wrote a note of concern to Cheney (I think it was Cheney) and also wrote a copy for himself and placed it in a sealed envelope and saved it for when this came out so he had proof of his concern.
  19. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    No, prior to this decision by Bush the law required to go through the FISA courts, and as has been pointed out, this can be done up to 14 days retroactively so it's not a hinderance(sp?).
    I think that is for domestic wiretapping.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Those members involved could not say anything to anyone. One congressman wrote a note of concern to Cheney (I think it was Cheney) and also wrote a copy for himself and placed it in a sealed envelope and saved it for when this came out so he had proof of his concern.
    So you believe that the senators and members of congress could not ask for investigation into intelligence areas without being specific to the public. I have a hard time believing that the president had that much sway over them. Especially with the outrage they are on the talk circuits with now.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"

Posting Permissions