Why Bush’s Warrantless Spying Programs Puts Americans At Risk
Why Bush’s Warrantless Spying Programs Puts Americans At Risk
Today, President Bush attempted to justify his secret domestic spying program:
The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers, called from the outside of the United States and of known al Qaeda or affiliate people. In other words, the enemy is calling somebody and we want to know who they’re calling and why.
In fact, according to this explanation, the program was not only illegal but unnecessarily puts the American people at risk.
If we know that U.S. persons are communicating with al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, the surveillance would be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (Remember, doing so would not slow the process down because you can obtain the approval up to 72-hours after the surveillance has begun.) Evidence obtained with a warrant from the FISA court, in most cases, can be used to charge and prosecute a suspect. In fact, Section 218 of the Patriot Act amended FISA to make it easier to introduce evidence obtained with a FISA warrant to prosecute people.
Every conversation monitored under Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program is a missed opportunity to get someone who is talking with terrorists off the streets and behind bars.
Why? Becuase evidence obtained by Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program is probably not admissible in court. Convictions obtained with evidence from this program may be overturned. Suspected terrorists are already pursuing appeals.
Conversation between U.S. persons and a known terrorists should be monitored. But those conversations should be monitored in a way maximizes the security of the American people. Bush’s secret program doesn’t do it. We’d be much safer if he would cancel it and start following the law.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
180 Responses to “Why Bush’s Warrantless Spying Programs Puts Americans At Risk”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What about judicial concerns regarding : Were any of the warrants requested with a dose of improbable cause? Here is a link to what one of the judiciary has to say.:
January 1st, 2006 at 9:45 pmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326.html. Happy New year. TP for the Republic!.Yeah Mo Fo
How can Bush be detaining terrorists indefinately and also end up having terrorists be released. You all contradict yourselves.
January 1st, 2006 at 9:50 pmThere is no contradiction. This is an opportunity to get these people behind bars.
For the Bush administration, there is always the option of detaining them indefinately without charging them. But especially with U.S. persons this is very legally problematic. They've ended up having to charge people like Jose Padilla and were recently rebuked by the conservative Fourth Circuit court of appeals.
January 1st, 2006 at 9:57 pmRead that quote again:
So what he's saying is that we're letting known AQ operatives run loose?
We'll give the prez a chouce. Either this is just one more lie or he and his government are completely inept.
January 1st, 2006 at 10:05 pm#2 - Gary - sounds like you've already tried and convicted detainees. If you are detaining a terrorist, by default, they're already guilty, eh?
My problem is with the government detaining people (or, in this case, spying on them) without any oversight. Perhaps you'd like to be whisked away in the middle of the night without any legal representation (perhaps to a foreign land), but it's not what my vision of America is.
Why is this basic concept so difficult for some to understand? Oh, it's because you feel you'd never be the target? Think again - with a "squeal on the neighbors" attitude so pervasive, who's to stop someone anonymously "squealing" on you.
January 1st, 2006 at 10:09 pm#4 Dave: Um - yup, and if these are intercepted calls with known AQ connections, what's the harm in a FISA warrant? Seems pretty simple to me.
Then again, perhaps Herr Bush is just a peeping-tom (as are how many NSA folks listening in on things?).
January 1st, 2006 at 10:15 pmWhy are you operating under the peculiar assumption that Bush was actually spying on terrorists? If he was, there would have been no problem going through FISA. The only logical assumption is that he was spying on someone else and those someone elses were probably political opponents and possibly his own allies. J.Edgar Hoover redux.
January 1st, 2006 at 10:25 pmSorry to threadjack, but:
Bush won't seek additional funds for Iraq reconstruction
RAW STORY
The Bush administration does not intend to seek any new funds for Iraq reconstruction in the budget request going before Congress in February, officials tell the WASHINGTON POST in Monday's editions, RAW STORY has learned... Excerpts...
#
The decision signals the winding down of an $18.4 billion U.S. rebuilding effort in which roughly half of the money was eaten away by the insurgency, a buildup of Iraq's criminal justice system and the investigation and trial of Saddam Hussein.Just under 20 percent of the reconstruction package remains unallocated.
When the last of the $18.4 billion is spent, U.S. officials in Baghdad have made clear, other foreign donors and the fledgling Iraqi government will have to take up what authorities say is tens of billions of dollars of work yet to be done merely to bring reliable electricity, water and other services to Iraq's 26 million people.
"The U.S. never intended to completely rebuild Iraq," Brig. Gen. William McCoy, the Army Corps of Engineers commander overseeing the work, told reporters in a recent news conference. In an interview this past week, McCoy said: "This was just supposed to be a jump-start."
Bush won't seek additional funds for Iraq reconstruction
RAW STORY
The Bush administration does not intend to seek any new funds for Iraq reconstruction in the budget request going before Congress in February, officials tell the WASHINGTON POST in Monday's editions, RAW STORY has learned... Excerpts...
#
The decision signals the winding down of an $18.4 billion U.S. rebuilding effort in which roughly half of the money was eaten away by the insurgency, a buildup of Iraq's criminal justice system and the investigation and trial of Saddam Hussein.Just under 20 percent of the reconstruction package remains unallocated.
When the last of the $18.4 billion is spent, U.S. officials in Baghdad have made clear, other foreign donors and the fledgling Iraqi government will have to take up what authorities say is tens of billions of dollars of work yet to be done merely to bring reliable electricity, water and other services to Iraq's 26 million people.
"The U.S. never intended to completely rebuild Iraq," Brig. Gen. William McCoy, the Army Corps of Engineers commander overseeing the work, told reporters in a recent news conference. In an interview this past week, McCoy said: "This was just supposed to be a jump-start."
January 1st, 2006 at 10:52 pmI want an independent investigation to find out the answers to these two questions, ones I believe are most crucial to this story:
Why did they not obtain warrants (from a court that approved such papers with such rapidness that they had to borrow Rummy's ink-stamp signature [read Truth (with Jokes) to check the reference) after they started surveillance on subjects?
Who were they spying on? It seems to me that if the military deemed PETA activists and anti-war Quakers as potential terrorist threats, who would the NSA go after? High school speech and debate teams?
January 1st, 2006 at 10:53 pm"The U.S. never intended to completely rebuild Iraq," Brig. Gen. William McCoy, the Army Corps of Engineers commander overseeing the work, told reporters in a recent news conference. In an interview this past week, McCoy said: "This was just supposed to be a jump-start."
Someone just blinked - and it wasn't the terrorists. I thought we would "pay any cost for Iraqi freedom"? The news is welcome, nonetheless. It signals the Bush administration's acknowledgement that Americans no longer support his "legacy", and that control of the House and Senate were always more important than Iraqi freedom.
Suck on that, you servile conservatives - he sold out the Iraqis for political gain (again) - but his quacking legacy is a fitting preamble to the republicans' swan song. Abramoff is going to sink you guys anyway, no matter how much flip-flopping he does on Iraq.
January 1st, 2006 at 10:54 pmAnd the apple doesn't fall far from the tree - remember Bush 1's "read my lips, no new taxes"? They lie about their real agenda, and you clods suck it up like it was cream style corn (which it really is, only you guys on the right are to tribalist to see it).
Tuesday will come to be known by historians as "Red Tuesday" for all of the conservative blood-letting Abramoff's testimony will engender. And it couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch!
dano347
Oh, come on, America! Don't tell me you don't have enough imagination to have some fun with this. Just think, we can make up our very own language for communicating to each other...e.g., hey!! the fux might be listening in...let's give them a screen-full and make their day... get it?
January 1st, 2006 at 10:56 pmThis can be fun...
The President's explanation doesn't wash. If these situations were as clear-cut and unambiguous as he describes, the FISA warrants would have been a slam-dunk.
He's bluffing with the only card he holds -- "If I don't do this, you'll all die."
Problem is, if there are enough chickenshit Americans peeing their pants like Ruppert, he might get away with it.
January 1st, 2006 at 11:12 pmHey guys;
This just one more of the many distractions THEY are playing. This is a steady state stream of facts that are linked to incipient fascism: the day will come that The Bill of Rights is a thing of the past. It's sad to live to see what's happening to America. No sooner they are involved in any trick than there comes the next scandal. Like with the magician, their bahavior is faster than our minds. Forget about it; this is their pendular turn...nobody's gonna stop'em...al least with this fake democracy...
January 1st, 2006 at 11:23 pmWhat if somebody calls me and I do not know that they have ties to al-qaeda. Am I going to be spied on without a warrant just because a phone call?
January 1st, 2006 at 11:31 pm#14- Luis: Sure thing, you think they wouldn't? Tho, with the "program" that doesn't have any oversight - who knows who they're spying on - or why.
January 1st, 2006 at 11:38 pmIn December of 2000 Bush said that "This (America) would be a heck of a lot easier if this was a dictatorship just so long as I am the dictator."
Although rare, Bush was being honest when he said that.
January 1st, 2006 at 11:38 pmOh Tosh. Anyone they really catch will be nabbed secretly, rendered to some third world hellhole, and boiled in his own excrement. Admissibility in court? Bush laughs at your admissibility in court!
January 1st, 2006 at 11:39 pmGetting FISA court warrants to eavesdrop on real suspicious people is easy-as-pie, so President George W. Bush is trying a switch-play with the truth! It is obvious that he ordered the NSA to spy on anti-war activists, like Cindy Sheehan, and on his political enemies in the Democratic party! The FISA court would reject issueing writs for that kind of snooping, plus the court would have a record/list of names being spied upon!
Bush and Cheney willingly broke the law, so their actions demand hearings and impeachment for both of them!
January 1st, 2006 at 11:40 pm#14
Al-Qaeda operatives are required under law to identify themselves to you when they call, and provide a 7-digit registration code preceded by the letters AQ.
Also, if you have Caller ID, incoming al-Qaeda calls will typically show up as "Tora Bora," "The Cave" or -- for older phone listings -- "CIA."
January 1st, 2006 at 11:42 pmThe whole point of the constitution is that there are certain protections given to every citizen - and when the government decides to spy on it's own people (in the "greater good") it's a slippery slope. Those that feel it's ok to give up civil rights in this grand "war on terror" don't deserve any civil rights - let's mount cameras in their homes and install listening devices on them.
January 1st, 2006 at 11:44 pm#19: LMOL - Dang, I missed that one - all my caller-id says is "Out Of Area" - I guess that could be caves or something. Hmm. I'll have to talk to Vonage about their crappy caller-id. Some how being boiled (aka #17) doesn't seem like much fun - well, at least not without adding carrots and potatoes. And none of those crappy dried herbs, fresh ones only, please. :)
January 1st, 2006 at 11:50 pmWe're not fighting a legal battle in court. We're prosecuting a war against terrorists who don't fight fair. We want to stop terrorists attacks, not put "bad people" in jail.
January 1st, 2006 at 11:51 pmWe are fighting a war. But that doesn't mean we should give up any of the weapons we have. The Bush administration is actively prosecuting terrorists in federal court. They brag about it. Prosecuting terrorists is a weapon we have and we shouldn't compromise it if it doesn't create any advantage for us.
January 1st, 2006 at 11:56 pmOn a followup to #19 - on a more serious note - it's still interesting that the "best military in the world" and the "best intelligence operation in the world" can't find this guy. Of course, way back when, Bush didn't seem too interested in actually finding him. Not that it matters - OBL is just one of many people that the administration has managed to piss off - and it's convenient that this boogie-man and the "war on terror" will continue.
January 1st, 2006 at 11:56 pm#22: Terrorists don't fight fair - that's true. But the battle will never be "won" on the battlefield. If you recall history, the colonists in this country "didn't fight fair" - they learned the "hit 'n run terroristic" tactics from the natives. The only solution to the problem is understanding why the hate exists and work from there.
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:03 amJudd: (23) - I don't agree - we're not fighting a "war" - not in the traditional sense. We're fighting an angry dis-jointed group which is reacting to our bad foreign policy in certain regions of the world. I'd think if we were better with foreign policy, there wouldn't be the problem we face now. Just look at who's "pissed off" at us and what our policies are in that part of the world.
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:10 amThe more I look around the net, the more i see the news.. i have a bad feeling this is going to be swept up and thrown in the corner with all the other dirt bush has pulled.. there are several articles circulating about how the "cult" aspect fits bush's followers.. meaning if u take all the stats that are used to decide 'what makes a cult and a cult follower'.. this administration and the people who stand by them fall into this category..
i'm afraid that bush will get away with the lies and really, anything illegal he wants.. this will be wiped away with the next crisis making the news and ppl will forget about this..
what crisis you say? how 'bout our invasion of iran this year? i added some info that is coming out about this on my blog, please feel free to stop by and say hi..
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:13 amYou know terrorists have been killing Americans for a long time.
I don't remember anyone panicing when Tim McVeigh took out an entire Federal building in Oklahoma.
McVeigh was a fundemental Christian and therefore blends easily into the population in the US. But that did not stop us for going after him.
This war on terror is nothing more than a big fat Red Herring, nothing more.
If we were really concerned about terrorists we would have held the 30+ members of Bin Ladens family, we would have given him a 2 month head start, and we would never have invaded Muslim Holy land, and act guarunteed to create more terrorists than we could ever imagine.
Only a fool would believe the War on Terror is anything more than a Wag the Dog.
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:27 amYou know terrorists have been killing Americans for a long time.
I don't remember anyone panicing when Tim McVeigh took out an entire Federal building in Oklahoma.
McVeigh was a fundemental Christian and therefore blends easily into the population in the US. But that did not stop us for going after him.
This war on terror is nothing more than a big fat Red Herring, nothing more.
If we were really concerned about terrorists we would have held the 30+ members of Bin Ladens family, we would have given him a 2 month head start, and we would never have invaded Muslim Holy land, and act guarunteed to create more terrorists than we could ever imagine.
Only a fool would believe the War on Terror is anything more than a Wag the Dog.
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:29 amJames Madison saw these guys coming a couple hundred years away. He and some very smart fellows made it very clear this this bushit won't fly.
I know New York Republicans have enough problems of their own they sure as heck don't need Bush bringing them any further down... of course, if shared some of that spying data so they could save their own butts they might not mind.
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:57 amThe United States Congress has to decide immediately, when they return to DC at end of January, if they want to be powerless and let Bush rule as a dictator/king, or get some spine and impeach George for "High Crimes"?!
If the Congress decides on being wimps, then WE the people have a right to demand that the entire membership of the House and Senate resigns in shame!
They are supposed to keep the Executive Branch of our government in check, and prevent any power abuse of our Constitution, as well as protecting our freedoms in the "Bill of Rights"!
The Constitution says flat out: that at any time the federal government fails to represent the people, then WE the citizens have a right for a NEW government!
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:57 amIsn`t the catch in Lord Mush`s words: "...communicating with known al Qaeda operatives?" For instance, the US government didn`t know Zarqawi was affiliated with al Qaeda till he decided it was beneficial to label himself as such. And what about all the loosely affiliated jihadis out there who have caught the murdering meme? A better way to protect Americans is to fully enact The 9/11 Commission`s recommendations and also change our most egregious behavior overseas.
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:59 amSaddam at Home
January 1, 2006
James P. Pinkerton’s “You make the call: Civil liberties or safety?†is trying to assume that Americans care more about their skins than civil liberties. I think it’s too early in the game to access whether Americans are willing to forgo their civil rights so easily. Throughout the article Pinkerton attempted to assure us we’re willing to let our civil liberties fall so that we can die in our sleep. Is he right? Or is the whole article is Pinkerton’s self-reflection? I believe it’s the latter. But let’s say it’s the former: Americans are willing to drop their civil liberties to fight and overcome terrorism. That’s why we’re in Iraq, right? Since we now believe it wasn’t the WMDs that brought us into Iraq but to inject democracy we can now say with confidence that we’re doing the right thing: We overthrew Saddam Hussein not for our national security but so that Iraq could have civil liberties and a free economy. And we Americans are okay with that, sacrificing our civil liberties, national economy and the rule of law. Either that’s stark raving psychosis or Saddam is sitting at the Oval Office.
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:06 amYou forget that the administration does not plan to put on trial people they have found "guilty". The administration is the prosecutor, judge and jury. With the Padilla case, the administration got the okay to have its own courts too. That's where Padilla was headed until the Supreme Court put some guidelines, and the administration found that the trial it had envisioned was no longer possible.
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:48 amIf you all are so concerned about terrorists being released due to what you call "illegal wiretaps" then maybe you all shouldn't have released that information.
January 2nd, 2006 at 3:22 amIf you all are so concerned about terrorists being released due to what you call “illegal wiretaps†then maybe you all shouldn’t have released that information.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 2, 2006
Gary Ruppert is a euphemism for psychotic moron.
January 2nd, 2006 at 6:03 amPlunger,
Take your anti-semitism and conspiracy theories someplace else. Your spam is getting old.
From one of the links you keep spamming...
Carl Levin does not want anyone to understand what happened on 9-11. That's because he was part of the team that pulled it off. As I explain in "Merry Christmas, and OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!" the 9-11 terror was the kickoff event in the War for Jewish Supremacy.
http://www.Public-Action.com/christmas.html
The aim of this war is to establish a world-wide Jewish theocratic state, where rabbinical courts will rule every country. The current vanguard of this Jewish empire is an organization called Chabad Lubavitch. Carl Levin has publicly endorsed Chabad Lubavitch from the floor of the Senate.
http://levin.senate.gov/floor/052501fs1.htm
cached at:
http://www.Public-Action.com/x/nh-levin-loves-lubavitch
Carl Levin is not going to blow the whistle on NORAD. Please understand Carl Levin. He is a patriotic Jew. He is not a patriotic American. Levin allowed Myers and Eberhart to get away with murder because 9-11 furthers his nation's plan for world domination. For documentation:
http://www.Public-Action.com/christmas.html
Think about it. There is no way you could pull off 9-11 without having Levin in your pocket.
You are as bad as Ruppert. I mean psychotic moron.
January 2nd, 2006 at 6:21 amThis war on terror does not exist. Where is the enemy? Dwelling in caves somewhere in Afghanistan? This war does not exist because it will never end, it’s impossible to win a war against an enemy that does not exist.
The enemy, the terrorists, can be anyone and always will have the ability to strike at us, probably the suicidal fashion. You could only win a war like this one if you searched for what causes terrorist emergence and tackle them.
Instead, the Administration prefers to bomb the shit out of Iraq, torture prisoners, etc.
This war is but a pretext to keep citizens in constant fear and ergo abdicate their civil rights and freedoms to those in power.
Bush is a very intelligent man; he must have thoroughly read 1984. In that book war was also eternal, those in power were not aiming at winning the war, merely at perpetuating it. When you say we are at war, who is it that were are supposed to be fighting?
January 2nd, 2006 at 6:23 amEven the John Birch Society thinks you are a nutbar, Plunger. That's really bad. They are the original tin foil hat squad. Get a life, Dude.
January 2nd, 2006 at 6:37 am"Why? Becuase evidence obtained by Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program is probably not admissible in court."
no problem, the bushcriminal has gotten around all of the legal tangles associated with courts: just claim someone an enemy combatant and whosh, problem solved...person disappears and there is no means of retreiving them.
January 2nd, 2006 at 7:30 amthe debate is being framed successfully right now by the President...he's put it in simple terms.
Terrorists were calling here, why shouldn't I know what they are up to and protect you from harm.
Democrats are framing this as a 'legal matter', Outside the Beltway I think the President will have support.
to be clear as a Republican I don't like what the administration did here and wish FISA would've been the option. But such as it is, the President has made his argument better at this point.
we'll see how the legal entanglement ensues because it's important for future Presidents.
January 2nd, 2006 at 8:13 amThe NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers, called from the outside of the United States and of known al Qaeda or affiliate people. In other words, the enemy is calling somebody and we want to know who they’re calling and why.
^Now this is another crock of crap. If they know who the enemy is and they are monitoring them, why not just target them and not be wiretapping thousands of Americans. Go after the real terrorists eh? I'm starting to think that there is no al Qaeda. It's just something the bushfugs all made up to further their agenda. For all I know Osama Bin Laden could be some dude who just lives in caves and holds taped church meetings, then they roll the tape on tv and interpret it as some big threat to us.
January 2nd, 2006 at 8:30 amAh and yeah, the point on Timothy Mc Veigh. There was no time wasted on hunting him down. We got Saddam, so where in the hell is Osama? Isn't HE the guy that supposedly takes all the credit for his 9/11 stunt among other things? But we can't find Osama! It's just effin bull.
Rummy, condo, bushfug, and cheneybubba's ideas of a draw down is to pull the boots off the ground and bomb the hells out of these cities in Iraq because we are losing. May as well turn it all into a parking lot, move on in and call it America Part Deux.
This is all to spin the facts of the innocent Iraqis been killed and a counrty destroyed because of you IGNORANT moraos ...please get back to Iraq stories and stop spinning with this boring story
January 2nd, 2006 at 8:31 amthe debate is being framed successfully right now by the President…he’s put it in simple terms.
Terrorists were calling here, why shouldn’t I know what they are up to and protect you from harm
That's right. Big brother is gonna protect us. Now sleep tight.
January 2nd, 2006 at 8:35 amFace the Facts ...
1/all countries in the world monitor calls by computers
2/ they have the technology to listen in your house anytime anywhere by ampliflying the diaphram on your phone that moves at all times this techology has been around for 50 years. even when you not using the phone
3/ certain words you say like BOMB automatically start recording conversations anyway
4/ no terrorist in the word would menyion bomb they will speak about fishing or something
--------------
NOW STOP THIS SPIN AND GET BACK TO THE INNOCENT PEOPLE YOU HAVE KILLED AND COUNTRY DESTROYING YOU ARE DOING YOU BUNCH OF MASS MURDERING WANKERS
--------------
I SAY TO THE WORLD BOYCOTT AMERICAN GOODS
January 2nd, 2006 at 8:38 amAnd Tony Blair has not implemented any of his own little plans to control the Brits? I do believe there are brits murdering innocent people too.
January 2nd, 2006 at 8:48 amA public enquiry into 911 will give the Americans all theere worst fears come true and that is Bush knew of 911 in advance and let it happen there more than enough documents and FBI reports of this to prove it ....BUT hey lets not have a public enquiry as that will prove bush to be guilty........ you know only 7 % of the world like Bush and 125 million of them are in America Right ... that leave 2% of the world like that idiot mass murdering bloody dictator that kidnapped America ...
PS why do we never hear of any NEWS from John Kerry has Bush Banned that too ?????
January 2nd, 2006 at 8:56 amto be clear as a Republican I don’t like what the administration did here and wish FISA would’ve been the option. But such as it is, the President has made his argument better at this point.
It just looks that way because, as usual, the president has lied.
The information about the extent of this surveillance was already out there and has been reported to have been considerably more widespread than "listening to overseas calls from al-Qaida".
the debate is being framed successfully right now by the President…he’s put it in simple terms.
Has he ever put anything in any other terms? Simple is as simple does. It goes in the same barrel with:
and at least 1,000 other equally simple and equally untrue statements.
As a Republican, aren't you starting to get tired of being lied to? Or, as a Repbulican, is it not a lie if it isn't about sex?
Terrorists were calling here, why shouldn’t I know what they are up to and protect you from harm.
And if that is what he is doing then there is no reason on ____(insert name of god of your choice)'s green earth why he couldn't get a warrant to listen to that conversation (or even, if he didn't know what number was going to be called, to start surveillance when the call starts and get a warrant within the next 72 hours). If the call doesn't produce any "foreign intelligence" he doesn't even have to get a warrant unless the surveillance is continued for more than 72 hours and provided that any information gathered is destroyed within the 72 hours.
January 2nd, 2006 at 9:03 amIn the immortal words of Josiah Quincy:
January 2nd, 2006 at 9:04 am
Richb in #52 says, as a Republican I don’t like what the administration did here and wish FISA would’ve been the option. But such as it is, the President has made his argument better at this point.
As a Republican huh? Here is a quote for you to think about:
"There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if that had been "Homeland" instead of "Fatherland" you would have thought it was one of junior's famous qoutes instead of Adolph Hitler's, huh?
I mean, just how much personal freedoms, invasions of privacy, and violations of the Constitutions are you and the Republicans willing to go along with before you say "enough" to this nitwit president? Perhaps if the citizens of Germany would have stood up to another nitwit who began twisting the German laws and violating the rights of the minorities of its population, there would have been no Second World War.
Wake up, knucklehead. Its your ass on the line, too.
January 2nd, 2006 at 9:15 amYour site is becoming unusable TP.
Can you NOT fix the PHP scripting?
January 2nd, 2006 at 9:18 amor is your site under dos attack?
Either Way, if you DO not fix it, you, will fall off the face of the Internet, Many Times today and yesterday, and many other days before this. The problem is only within your server, or your ISP, I would suggest setting up mirror sites, as your site is the only buggy One I am encountering, as many others here have stated.
it IS UNUSABLE..KlIK remove Bookmarks, Toilet Paper (T.P.)
January 2nd, 2006 at 9:25 amto read about Data mining, and since TP is unable to Serve a working site,
Data mining Tracking drive to work, nails bought
BYE BYE SOROS and Toilet Paper!! _||_(*.*)
January 2nd, 2006 at 9:27 amPlunger, What about judy miller? I follow your story, but what if IT is a distraction? You haven't nailed the motive. Thanks.
January 2nd, 2006 at 9:32 am#68, No thank you. The chimp is the current criminal. Impeach him before he can invade another country.
January 2nd, 2006 at 9:40 amThe President's massive secret spying program is not only blatantly wrong and illegal, but it's also ineffective.
1. The immorality and illegality are blatant. Why else would not just one, but according to the New York Times about a dozen current and former officials blow the whistle on the President "because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight"?
Indeed, why did the President make such a big deal out of needing the Patriot Act to help make it easier to get spy warrants from a court? Bush had to say this because he knew that a fundamental requirement of the law is going to the court before you can spy on US citizens like you and me.
The huge public reaction against Bush when his illegal secret spying program finally was unearthed just shows how fundamental this law is to our freedom. All the while, however, Bush was spying on us without bothering to get the warrants.
Is it any surprise or coincidence that the White House got another bogus CYA memo from their go-to inexperienced lap dog lawyer, John Yoo? The same John Yoo who was disgraced for writing the now totally discredited memo justifying torture.
And just add to that the hypocrisy of the Administration in sicking the Justice Department in a witch hunt on all their enemy whistleblowers they want to out. Contrast that with their sudden “no comment†clam up position in protecting the Plame leakers once that investigation started to point to the President and his favorite confidants in the White House.
Look at history. Look at Nixon. Would it have been right to let the Justice Department witch hunt the lone Deepthroat who outed Nixon’s secret spying? Of course not, then as now, it’s the President and other perpetrators in the White House who are the problem. In this case the illegality and immorality are so blatant that not one, but twelve Deepthroats stood up. And all of them knowing that doing the right thing puts their careers and reputation in jeopardy because of the Administration’s proven rabid, “payback†tactics against its enemies, including outing a CIA agent, torturing hundreds on vague suspicions of terrorism etc.
2. The illegal secret program is an unmitigated failure. The terrorist-backed insurgency in Iraq is raging. We never caught OBL, MO or Zarqawi despite the all of the Administration’s desperate illegal secret spying and torture.
The irony is we didn't even need illegal secret spying or torture to stop 9/11 - we had all the intel we needed but our government agencies didn't share that info. Further, the Bush Administration ignored the CIA’s warning right after Bush took office that al Qaeda was America’s number one threat. The Bush Administration also took Bush’s cue and ignored a subsequent memo warning about OBL about to strike the US. As the final steps up to 9/11 took place, Bush was on vacation the whole month of August.
The real tragedy is that while Bush has ridden off on his borderline insane frolic-and-detour in the secret spying and state condoned torture, Bush still hasn't addressed the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, including the one about emergency workers sharing radio spectrum (another avoidable problem in Katrina which cost us lives). The President's report card from the bipartisan 9/11 commission has "F"s, and lots of them with a lot of other low grades too. And we're wasting our resources by passing around pork to defend parts of the country that aren't even at risk. This Nation’s security also still has not recovered from Bush’s crony-hack appointments including “you’re doing a heck of a job Brownie†and the hundreds of lives that were lost because of them. Too much time has passed for our defense to still be this weak. This is a disgrace.
As Nick Kristoff, a pretty sharp guy writes, the terrorists are still running circles around us on the Internet and we still have silly rules that prevent our agents from posing as jihadists. Why isn't the President targeting silly rules like these whose elimination would make a real difference rather than illegally spying on US citizens?
The situation is screaming for impeachment. The Republicans can only hold off impeachment proceedings until the mid-term elections in November, when America will wrest itself away from the Republican stranglehold on Congress and our Nation.
I am not just naysaying, I'm telling the truth. The war on terror is a failure. The President has had his chance and has made all the wrong moves. Most Americans don't feel safer for good reason.
Here's what we need to do. The President needs to devote real resources and political capital to cleaning up homeland security, to addressing the 9/11 commission recommendations, and to listening to smart people like Nick Kristoff who raise real issues rather than divisely branding anyone who doesn't drink the Bush Cool Aid as being unpatriotic.
Also, the President has to reach out far more effectively to disaffected Muslims. There are a billion plus Muslims in this world. We need to win the battle for their conscience and win them over. Indiscriminate torture and police state spying hurt us here.
January 2nd, 2006 at 9:40 amSo have we, as taxpayers, paid to have our own government intrude upon us? Can we see this some place in a budget? It's a billable expense is it not? Do they require workers comp. for freelancers? I guess the flip side is so far so good other than katrina so everyone keep buying gas and shopping so more can be spent on keeping us in line. Beautiful.
January 2nd, 2006 at 9:49 amDoes this singling out of Republicans indicate that this is a partisan issue Joe ? Comment by Wooberstank #70.
No, as a rightwing conservative "nimrod" myself, I just think the continual violations of constitutional laws and individual rights by the Republican Administration with permission of the Republican House and Republican Senate is going too far in curbing the freedoms we enjoy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the conservative party in power should quit attacking our personal liberties and stick to what it does best: keeping an eye on and trying to police what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
When it comes to junior, pal, I don't have to wake up. I just throw up.
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:02 amI hate that little grin when bushie is lieing...ukkkk. An impeached pres. can't spy on anyone.
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:11 amWhy does the Bush government hate America? This man and his cabal has completely trashed the 4th admendment as well as several other civil liberties with the Patriot Act. Wake up America, this nation at war BS can go on for 10-20 years, what will we be then? The men and women that founded this country and fought for the ideals of freedom and independance are reeling in their graves. Bush's listening activities need to be investigated by an independant prosecutor as his boy, Alberto is in his pocket at DOJ. He needs to be impeached if found guity if any indictable offenses. One could argue that he has committed treason and should go to prison since he knowingly subverted federal law during war time.
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:12 amPersonally, if bushy wants to spy on me - LET HIM. Perhaps THEN bubbleboy will realize what America REALLY thinks. A little dose of REALITY. Something that he (and the rest of the republican reich) knows nothing about.
Hey, I LIKE THAT! They're ALL Reich Wingers!
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:19 amPlunger,if i follow what you have surmised, the only motive would be to get way out ahead on something that needed to happen. IE: The aquisition of a solid airbase east of Israel and all the control that comes with it. Zionist, if that means never leaving Jerusalem, maybe just a regional by product. Closer to India and closer to China, seems to me where we are going. Syria, the western front, I think will be next, Israel justs sits there and waits to get attacked, then Iran gets nervous and then what? I still don't see any other reason other than a copius amount of executive power grab, you know seat a couple of well placed judges and how does that song go , "Bring Lawyers, Guns and Money."
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:26 amAll this says is you didn’t understand what was reported.
All satellite and digital communications worldwide are monitored and have been for decades. If this type of blanket monitoring is an issue for you then youve got half a dozen presidents to take issue with before you get to Bush.
Comment by Wooberstank — January 2, 2006 @ 9:27 am
Ah, so you agree that Bush lied when he said
The issue most certainly isn't about blanket monitoring. It is about monitoring U.S. persons without a warrant based on probable cause as guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution of the United States (and just incidentally about telling such a transparent lie about it that even you realize that much broader surveillance than Bush claims to have done has been going on for years).
To paraphrase the Republican battle-cry of '98, "it's not the spying, it's the lying."
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:27 amThe use of the predator drones has superseded the need for cruise missiles. Plus when Clinton used them in SE Afghanistan,he violated Pakistani airspace and wrecked an ISI training facility. The Pakistanis were a bit miffed about the airspace thing and losing some of their own intelligence trainees.
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:36 amThe question is a valid one.If,as the President says, these calls are the domestic end of a call to/from a known terrorist,what are we waiting for? We haven't had any compunction about putting people in prisons.
Who is the boogey man? You think maybe they intercepted, I bet the President likes that word, Yeah, intercepted, heh, heh, a phone call from from one of the 19 flight escorts if you follow Plungers story. Yeah maybe one day M. Atta called the President to say hi.
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:37 amFrankly,
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:43 amI can agree with your premise and go one step further. If there were 18,000 taps as claimed by Fox News, do you really think that thoses were all foreign in nature of Americans of suspicion? of what? I say lets the the list of those who were tapped. I'm sure there are no political enemies (sic) or business competitors that maybe had a communication intercepted. If there is push back to produce the list or investigate the warrentless listening, there is a good reason, someone is guilty of abuse.
Actually he has 15 days to obtain the warrant during war time. Makes his case look even worse. I been reading through the actual code and there is not a single thing in there that makes it sound like he has the legal authority to do this. The fisa code actually requires that BOTH parties be of a foreign power and not U.S. citizens. Further it details on all surveillance to be forwarded to the intelligence and judiciary committees numerous times a year.
Jamie
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:55 amhttp://intoxination.blogspot.com
Bet you wish you knew the reason that ability was lost so you could express your outrage right ? Well it’s because details of this capability to intercept phone communications was part of the evidence disclosed in al Qaeda prosecutions which tipped off OBL to stop using his sat phone.
Would you happen to have a source for that, Wooberstank, or did a bird whisper it in your ear? It doesn't seem to play any part in this story.
You don't suppose there's any possibility that Osama was bright enough to figure out maybe he better shut down his sat phone after a few dozen cruise missiles missed him by about an hour, do you? Nah, I didn't think so.
January 2nd, 2006 at 11:00 amIf you destroy the constitution you destroy the United States. How's that for risk...
January 2nd, 2006 at 11:04 amWooberstank,
Are those direct quotes you're using from Nixon and Hitler, or are you just paraphrazing?
January 2nd, 2006 at 11:09 amCan someone take A pole from democrats and republicans on this issue? of wire tapping and E-mail invasion of americans constititional rights. Was the president right or wrong? please don't ask the congress. GWB said" they gave him the power when they told him to go after Iraq's WMD?"
January 2nd, 2006 at 11:24 amNo the issue is about whether you can apply fuzzy logic to a quote about something you know nothing about in order to interpret it as a lie. Do me a favour and just piss off. You are so far beyond irrelevant you may as well be talking about Plame.
Gee, and right up to there I had you figured for an intelligent person. Now I know you are a Canadian.
January 2nd, 2006 at 11:37 amRepublicans are pure scum. They should all be shot -- post-haste
January 2nd, 2006 at 11:43 amWooberstank, Are those direct quotes you’re using from Nixon and Hitler, or are you just paraphrazing?
Comment by The Truth — January 2, 2006 @ 11:09 am
The only direct quotes I have posted are from other readers of ThinkProgress. I’m sure they appreciate the poorly thought out insult in lieu of you having anything relevant to say.
Comment by Wooberstank — January 2, 2006 @ 11:36 am
Another ignorant neocon who cannot think for itself... so he paraphrases stuff that he read in one of his ignorant neo-nazi pamphlets and then blames it on us when he can't remember the exact quote or source...
What's a matter the neocons kick you out of their websites for being too extreme for even them? If you dislike us so much, stop crashing our parties. It smells better when you aren't around.
January 2nd, 2006 at 11:59 amSorry my link died. Here is a quote from the Wash. Post article by Leonning& Dafna, 051222, Page A01.here is the money quote for me. " The questions are obvious," said U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah. "What have you been doing, and how might it affect the credibility of the information we're getting in our court?" So here is a FISA judge asking, Did they snoop and THEN go get the FISA warrant based on info obtained with the first snoop? Not pretty if true.
January 2nd, 2006 at 11:59 amWooberstank,
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:10 pmSo you're paraphrasing...
Hey Wooberstank,
I was not insulting you. You have a picture of Nixon on your nightstand. Be proud of it. You think the guy got a raw deal. I don't see how me pointing that out is something you would take as an insult. In fact, I would think you would wear it as a badge of honor. And to complete the outfit you could take shredded copies of the constitution and weave them into a fly ass belt.
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:14 pmActually he has 15 days to obtain the warrant during war time.
I think you may be misreading the statute here. What is says is:
I take this to mean that warrantless surveillance may be conducted for 15 days after a declaration of war, not for 15 days during a state of war. Since Congress has not declared war, the point does not arise.
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:17 pmHere is another good one re FISA: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1043457933027
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:17 pmI just shot water out my nose. That is the stupidest statement I have read in a long time.
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:18 pmmaybe take the Bill of Rights and make one of those Burger King paper crowns out of it...
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:18 pmAmerican citizens, whether dabbling in terrorism or not, are subject to laws of the United States. They are not "detainees" - either a person is under arrest and charged with a crime or they aren't. It's easy to see why Bush would want to conduct spying on his own people in secrecy - he views the Constitution and the laws of this country as an impediment to the "War on Terror." If this is the kind of governance we can expect from the current Administration, and if our leadership is convinced our legal system isn't robust enough to survive the current extant crisis, I'd say the United States doesn't have long to live - at least not as a free and democratic society. FISA and the Patriot Act are very clear about warrants for wiretapping American citizens. Congress needs to carry out its Constitutional duty and put a stop to this tyranny.
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:25 pmAnd to complete the outfit you could take shredded copies of the constitution and weave them into a fly ass belt.
Comment by The Truth — January 2, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
He's doing it now, as we speak... Of course, you might want to make sure he knows what the Constitution actually looks like. You know most of neocons have never seen it, much less read it.
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:26 pmAh.. Wooberstank stopped toungue kissing his life size Hitler blow up doll long enough to come back and defile his charachter once more with the already disproven BusCo lie about Bin Ladin ditching his sat phone because of what he saw while watching CNN Late Edition. Nice...
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:44 pmHere's how Bush's secret wiretapping could be making the world safe for democracy, using Bush's justification for the program...He is using this limited program identify terroritsts within the United States...even if they turn out to be American citizens, they are still considered a terrorist if they are being contacted by someone outside the United States known to be a member of AlQaida, or affiliated with a member of AlQaida.
He can't use the evidence in a trial, but, He can use whatever evidence He obtains in order to declare a U.S. citizen an "enemy combatant" and lock that person away indefinitely, without a trial; or, He could have the CIA ship the person off to a secret prison, or to country known to commit torture, for interrogation.
After all, we are in a War Against Terror, and He has unlimited power under the Constitution of the United States of America to do whatever He feels is necessary to protect and defend the American people.
Anybody read 1984 recently?
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:48 pm"Anybody read 1984 recently?"
Wooberstock says to let you know he'll get to it right after he finishes reading Mein Kampf for the 10th time.
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:52 pmHey Wooberstank,
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:57 pmDo you hate gays because of what happened to you in the 7th grade with that older boy from next door? Cause if so, man.. you should just let it go...
Hey Wooberstank, I was not insulting you. You have a picture of Nixon on your nightstand. Be proud of it.
Comment by The Truth — January 2, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
Phew that’s lucky. Because otherwise you associating me with neo-nazis for no apparent reason could certainly be taken out of context as an insult.
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:01 pm---
Now now Wooberstank...
Don't sell yourself short. The NAZI comparisons are valid. You have shown very clearly your fascist credentials. Again, you should not feel insulted, given your political philosophy. I'm sure you also wear those as a badge of honor... on your brown shirt.... with your fancy shredded US Consitutions belt and Burger King Bill of Rights paper crown...
And Wooberstank,
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:05 pmI love how you validated my take that you have a picture of Nixon on your nightstand -- "OK so I do love Nixon... But calling me a NAZI is an INSULT!!!" Good job
Wooberstank,
you said, "Have any of you stopped to consider that getting a call from al Qaeda operative isn’t a crime and therefor this “inadmissable evidence†is just a beat up of a non-issue?"
Have you studied Evidence Law? If not, I recommend it, preferably at an ABA accredited law school. It may not be such a non-issue.
However, there is one "saving grace." Certain factions in Congress are willing to do whatever it takes to get Alito onto the Supreme Court. It is not impossible to picture a scenario where the FISA restrictions would be deemed to be an unconstitutional infringement on Presidential Power. As a War Time President, He will have Unlimited Power under the Constitution to do whatever He deems necessary to make the world safe for democracy.
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:12 pmWooberstank,
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:19 pmI recommend Trinity School of Law.
It's down in Orange County. Just be careful when they start talking about "fruit of the poisen tree" They could be talking about a few different things.
Bush is yet again insulting peopl's intelligence.
Supposedly, the NSA is only spying on INTERNATIONAL communications. I see. So, the NSA is not spying on DOMESTIC communications between dormant cells in various parts of the U.S.
Anyone who believes that there are no dormant terrorist cells hiding in plain sight in the U.S. is an idiot. Anyone who believes that members of these dormant cells do not communicate with one another within the confines of the U.S. territory is an idiot. It follows that anyone who believes that the NSA is spying solely on international communications is an idiot.
The truth of the matter is that Bush has given the NSA the right to spy on all communications of all citizens and residents of this country.
Bush is lying again to save his sorry arse. He broke the laaw and violated the Constitution, and has publicly vowed to break the law again. That is the real story, and the only one that counts.
The question is: how long are Americans going to tolerate this despotic behavior?
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:21 pm#64 calling me a 'knucklehead" while paraphrasing what I said removes you from a diaglogue I want to engage in. I've never insulted or called anyone a name on this forum. I come here to read what other folks are saying. I've changed my mind on several issues because people on this forum put forth an intelligent argument for a differing opinion.
I was merely stating the perception outside the beltway, that at this point the President's argument is being better received....I don't agree with what he's done.
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:27 pmIf you’ve just joined us the concept here is that you must be a neo-nazi to acknowledge that spying on US citizens didn’t start under Bush.
This would apparently make every single person here a holocaust denier given that absolutely everyone has now become aware this is what occurred but just refuse to acknowledge it because it hurt’s their propaganda.
Yeah, that's exactly what it does.
Hey Wooberstank, don't be all like, hurt - and - stuff... sniffle... If you don't want to be labeled a fascist, just stop stomping all over the Constitution.
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:30 pmBushites never give-up on their Fuehrer, no matter what he does wrong! Even if pics of Bush naked in bed with Jeff Gannon were released, the Bush Zombies would defend him!
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:37 pmWooberstank,
We could call you a Communist, if you prefer. The Soviet dictators also spied on their citizens. Same difference.
You are obviouly a dictatoship-loving troll.
You may want to try a stint in Uzbekistan, our ally in the war on terror. They don't mess around in Uzbekistan. They do not get all bent out of shape about a little nail-pulling, waterboarding, genital-cutting, rape and sodomy, like the sissies in the U.S.
If you really behave yourself, you will be granted the privilege to spy on people, torture them, and the next time there is a rebellion in a town like Adijan, fire live bullets on crowds of men, women, and children. Torture and spying activities are all well and good but a little massacre once in a while breaks the monotony.
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:40 pmJust a question, if torture, I mean, enhanced interrogation techniques work so fine, giving all sorts of useful information, why then not detain those wiretaped and then "interrogate" them in to learn all they know (including their Al Qaida phone contacts), and not simply wait one fortuituos call where some crumbs of information are thrown here and there, between the arab dialect, code words and language inconsistencies? This would be a superb method to obtain a lot of intelligence, isn't it? Or maybe they are affraid of kidnap USA nationals and bringing them to Guantanamo? Why?
As I see it, it's a vicious circle motivated by the legally murky actions taken by this Administration. Having so many grey bussiness in hands, creates a lot of gaps and holes, and creates bigger difficulties than filling legal bureaucracy requirements properly.
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:52 pmSpaniard,
What we don't know, and indeed may never know, is whether or not we have already "rendered" some whose calls have been monitored to a secret prison, or third country, to be "interrogated."
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:08 pmFISA surveillances must have an intelligence purpose. 50 U.S.C. §1804 (a) (7)(B). But courts allow FISA-obtained information to be used in criminal trials. See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 12,333, 3 C.F.R. 200, 211 (1982), reprinted in 50 U.S.C. § 401 note (1994)
("the Executive Branch need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance"), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144 (1982); United States v. Megahey, 553 F. Supp. 1180, 1189-90 (E.D.N.Y. 1982), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1984).
In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
In the Megahey litigation, the district court found that the phrase "primary purpose" is the guidepost for FISA-derived surveillance, given that "Congress clearly viewed arrest and criminal prosecution as one of the possible outcomes of a foreign intelligence investigation." The Second Circuit agreed, noting that, it is foreseeable that collected intelligence may be used in a criminal proceeding and "Congress recognized that in many cases the concerns of government with respect for foreign intelligence will overlap with those with respect to law enforcement." See also United States v. Johnson, 952 F.2d 565, 572 (1st Cir. 1991) (holding that the fact that the terrorist activity was directed at Northern Ireland was of no consequence to the legality of the FISA surveillance); United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067, 1076 (4th Cir. 1987) (concluding that "FISA surveillance is not tainted simply because the government can anticipate that the fruits of the surveillance may later be used... in a criminal trial").
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:11 pmIn 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
#129 So your logic is as follows: Clinton did it, then was right for Bush to do it, and therefore, Bush did it. Well, who is the woman screwed by Bush? How many stained dresses has Condi in the closet?
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:19 pmCOming from a president who has said "I dont know where bin ladden is, I dont realy care", and who is focusing ALL his efforts in IRAQ as opposed to Afghanistan, I find it hard to believe he gives a cr4ap about Al Qaeda... Meanwhile... there have eben documents released and news acrross the nation (small but news nonetheless) about law enforcment and fbi harassing peaceful protest groups and targeting them as "terrorists" wake up people!
These guys want a police states, and they want to stop all of you from getting pissed or talking about it!
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:26 pmWooberstank,
"I am familiar with the problems with prosecutions where investigations stem from initial disallowable evidence however they are unlikely to apply here."
You beg the question. The challenge posed by illegally obtained evidence does raise a substantial obstacle towards admitting any subsequently obtained evidence.
"As for the 4th amendment is there actually anyone making a serious arguement that someone involved with terrorism has a right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted searches while acting as the agent of a foreign terrorist organisation?"
I would make a serious argument that someone involved with terrorism has a right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted searches.
You see, your question assumes certain facts. How do you know someone is "involved with terrorism?" If you do not know of a specific individual, do you then deny the right to privacy and commit unwarranted searches of all individuals? Of, for the sake of argument, let's limit the search to someone contaced by a member of AlQaida, or by someone affiliated with AlQaida. That limit is illusory.
For example, have you ever received an email from someone purporting to be from a foreign country, trying to con you into sending money with a promise of millions in return? Could that spam email have been sent by someone "affiliated with AlQaida? If so, then, my friend, you are now subjected to a warrantless search.
"The two legal blogs I read both have the opinion that this violates FISA but probably not the constitution."
I read an article which described a Supreme Court case which said warrantless wiretapping does violate the 4th Amendment.
However, the President does have a Constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed. So, when He violated FISA, He also violated the Constitution, 4th Amendment arguments notwithstanding.
"That’s the problem with the “educated legal professionals†you refer to."
I wasn't refering to educated legal professionals. I was asking you whether or not you had a legal education, as you were making legal assertions as to the admissibility of evidence.
You seem to be quite intelligent, yet speak with an "us against them" perspective. I would show you a different path, if you are willing, and, open to the possibility that other perspectives are just as valid as the one you now hold.
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:40 pm#130. I made no such claim that what one administration does makes it okay for another. why do you guys always assume such? I stated no opinion whatsoever. What I am claiming is that the courts have found that evidence found in such surveillance can be permitted in criminal cases (something other posters say can't be done), and that prior administrations (Clinton, Carter)have argued, and, that the courts have found,that the executive has the inherent constitutional authority to perform warrentless searches for foreign intelligence / national security purposes.
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:57 pm#131 If the only reason you know suspect X exists is because Y called him from overseas on a flagged number then you don’t pull X out. You monitor who he contacts in the hope of dicovering suspects A B C D E F G H I K J L M N O P Q and R if they exist.
Thanks, you have demonstrated my first point, the enhanced interrogation techniques aren't so effective as the GOP wants to sell us.
The problem that Judd has is that when people like Mohammed Atta make calls about “arranging a wedding†over the course of a couple of years he has the expectation that someone should be able to tell whether this justifies a wiretap within 72 hours when there is no indication any human is involved in the wiretap process at that point or that it can even be called a wiretap that the NSA knows the people who used the word “wedding†in overseas calls on a particular day.
Wiretap begins when you press the "record" key. If the content of phone calls are recorded, they are, in fact, being wiretaped. And if you say that ALL CALLS (the ones of the 290 milion people living there? you know what are you saying?) within the USA are RECORDED from the 2001, I'm pretty sure that there is a lot of people that would demand (or anything worse) the whole WH for illegal wiretaping, beginning with the proud members of the NRA, the KKK, the telepreachers, the Scientology, the abortion clinic bombers...
And, btw, a legal wiretapping only needs "credible evidence" to be authorized. If you have suspicions concerning a terrorist based in those evidence, you have a free ride with the FISA. Why doing things the illegal way, then? Atta, as a known member of Al Qaeda (it was), organization who attacked the USS Cole a few years before would have been monitored legally.
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:59 pm#20 - "Those that feel it’s ok to give up civil rights in this grand “war on terror†don’t deserve any civil rights"
Comment by Mr. Tim -
****** WOW, my dear, Tim - Did you think that up all by yourself???
A couple of observations:
January 2nd, 2006 at 3:09 pma.) those who do not believe we are in a clash between the West and fanatical barbarians are blissfully ignorant.
b.) those who think history began the minute they were born are morons.
c.) those who do not believe we have avoided another terror hit since 9/11 because of more stringent security measures are woefully stupid.
d.) those who "feel" we can reason or accommodate radical Islamists are pathetically naive.
#20 - "Those that feel it’s ok to give up civil rights in this grand “war on terror†don’t deserve any civil rights"
Comment by Mr. Tim -
****** WOW, my dear, Tim - Did you think that up all by yourself???
A couple of observations:
January 2nd, 2006 at 3:09 pma.) those who do not believe we are in a clash between the West and fanatical barbarians are blissfully ignorant.
b.) those who think history began the minute they were born are morons.
c.) those who do not believe we have avoided another terror hit since 9/11 because of more stringent security measures are woefully stupid.
d.) those who "feel" we can reason or accommodate radical Islamists are pathetically naive.
#137 & 138
e) Those who don't know the difference between 1 click and 2 clicks belong to kindergarten and must grow to participate in adult's blogs.
January 2nd, 2006 at 3:14 pmBlue,
January 2nd, 2006 at 3:18 pmAre you being deliberately dishonest? Clinton argued they could conduct warrently PHYSICAL searches in the absence of A LAW that said otherwise. It was quite clear that FISA didn't cover PHYSICAL searches. The Clinton administration argued it should. And the law was changed to cover such a warrentless PYSICAL search. BushCo is breaking that law. Deliberately. Such a brazen power grab by the executive branch shreds the constitution and endagers our democracy. Or perhaps you think we should have less democracy? Are you a Republican? That would explain it...
Comey don't play that
Newsweek digs deeper into the story of Ashcroft' and his chief deputy James Comey's discomfort with the NSA spying "program" and they don't hedge on just how high Croftie was willing to let the eagle soar...
January 2nd, 2006 at 3:18 pmWhy not leave them where they are and just continue doing the same surveilence ? After all the entire issue is that this is being done to discover operatives in the US. If the only reason you know suspect X exists is because Y called him from overseas on a flagged number then you don’t pull X out. You monitor who he contacts in the hope of dicovering suspects A B C D E F G H I K J L M N O P Q and R if they exist.
Yes, it sounds like a good plan doesn't it. One has to wonder then, why the U.S. blew a certified al-Qaida agent working with Pakistani intelligence, Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan.
The problem that Judd has is that when people like Mohammed Atta make calls about “arranging a wedding†over the course of a couple of years he has the expectation that someone should be able to tell whether this justifies a wiretap within 72 hours when there is no indication any human is involved in the wiretap process at that point or that it can even be called a wiretap that the NSA knows the people who used the word “wedding†in overseas calls on a particular day.
The problem with this example is that people like Mohammed Atta are not "U.S. persons" as defined by FISA.
January 2nd, 2006 at 3:58 pmPeople like Mohammed Atta can be kept under surveillance for up to a year without a warrant provided that the Attorney General certifies that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." So try making the point by substituting a U.S. person, say, Cindy Sheehan or Joe Wilson, for Mohammed Atta.
#142 Thanks, you have demonstrated my first point, the enhanced interrogation techniques aren’t so effective as the GOP wants to sell us.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — January 2, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
Wiretap begins when you press the “record†key. If the content of phone calls are recorded, they are, in fact, being wiretaped. And if you say that ALL CALLS (the ones of the 290 milion people living there? you know what are you saying?)
I didn’t say that though. If you’d asked me I would have referred you to a figure of 3 billion communications per day as widely quoted. And yes gosh isn’t that a lot more than the 300m figure you thought was over the top. More than 1000 times more if all US citizens only made 1 call or email a year.
You want to wiretap suspects with no evidence, and all their communnications outside and inside the USA. So, if a given suspect call his imam for religious counsel, you will wiretap the suspect and his imam. So the imam becomes a suspect, also. The imam talks to a lot of people and directs worshipping, so a lot of people who talks to the imam becomes suspect. They are people with non muslim friends and coworkers, so they phone or email them. Soon, the whole population of the USA, the Middle East and many more, will become monitored. As you see, I'm not so far of the true number of possible illegal wiretaps.
At this point you certainly realise that you actually don’t know what it is you are talking about and the preconceptions your opinions were based on are wrong. That’s a pretty good reason to stop posting and spend that time considering just how well ThinkProgress has informed you of the issue they have posted 20 articles on.
Please, provide other links, especially those who enlighten you so much.
And, btw, a legal wiretapping only needs “credible evidence†to be authorized. If you have suspicions concerning a terrorist based in those evidence, you have a free ride with the FISA.
And if you are not a person but a computer with no concept of what a “suspicion†is but are instead searching for usage of keywords over the course of months as a way to establish patterns worth investigating ?
Some questions: who instructed this computer to begin the recording, and who introduced the list of SUSPECTS? So you want to let a computer alone handle the law? And, if you drive a car and you run over a couple people, who's guilty? You? Your car? General Motors?
Why doing things the illegal way, then? Atta, as a known member of Al Qaeda (it was), organization who attacked the USS Cole a few years before would have been monitored legally.
There’s about 5 ways that question makes no sense.
I'm very patient, write them down, and I will refute them.
January 2nd, 2006 at 4:02 pm#140. Dishonest? The Clinton administration's argument was that the inherent executive authority INCLUDED ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE.
in addition: 2002 government appeal of FISA court restrictions on electronic surveillance
UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE COURT OF REVIEW
_______________________
Argued September 9, 2002 Decided November 18, 2002
Per Curiam: This is the first appeal from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to the Court of Review since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1862 (West 1991 and Supp. 2002), in 1978. This appeal is brought by the United States from a FISA court surveillance order which imposed certain restrictions on the government. Since the government is the only party to FISA proceedings, we have accepted briefs filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)1 and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) as amici curiae.
Not surprisingly this case raises important questions of statutory interpretation, and constitutionality. After a careful review of the briefs filed by the government and amici, we conclude that FISA, as amended by the Patriot Act,2 supports the government’s position, and that the restrictions imposed by the FISA court are not required by FISA or the Constitution. We therefore remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
The court’s decision from which the government appeals imposed certain requirements and limitations accompanying an order authorizing electronic surveillance of an “agent of a foreign power†as defined in FISA. There is no disagreement between the government and the FISA court as to the propriety of the electronic surveillance; the court found that the government had shown probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign power and otherwise met the basic requirements of FISA.
....
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.
.....
Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces. Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable.
Accordingly, we reverse the FISA court’s orders in this case to the extent they imposed conditions on the grant of the government’s applications, vacate the FISA court’s Rule 11, and remand with instructions to grant the applications as submitted and proceed henceforth in accordance with this opinion.
The courts have ruled that POTUS has the inherent constitutional authority to perform warrantless searches, including electronicly.
January 2nd, 2006 at 4:36 pmThe war on terra is a hoax. This administration will use their so called "war on terra" to scare and intimidate americans as they have been for five years now. Have you had enough of the lies yet America? Spying on the american people is the last straw. It's past time to Impeach this bunch of thugs. Call your representatives and let them know they need to hold this admin accountable.
January 2nd, 2006 at 4:53 pmpardon. it would be more accurate to say that the Clinton administration's argument included the allowance of electronic searches.
January 2nd, 2006 at 5:12 pmThe courts have ruled that POTUS has the inherent constitutional authority to perform warrantless searches, including electronicly.
No, the courts have ruled that POTUS has the inherent constitutional authority to perform warrantless searches, including electronic searches to gather foreign intelligenc> information but not against U.S. persons unless there is credible evidence that such person is an "agent of a foreign power".
You are committing a logical fallacy known as elimination of qualification. It occurs when you use a pattern of the type All S as qualified is P, therefore all S is P. It is much the same as saying something like "gold at -270 degrees C is brittle, therefore gold is brittle."
January 2nd, 2006 at 5:18 pmI have built it. Will you come?
http://www.boycott-republicans.com
January 2nd, 2006 at 5:21 pmNo, the courts have ruled that POTUS has the inherent constitutional authority to perform warrantless searches, including electronic searches to gather foreign intelligenc> information but not against U.S. persons unless there is credible evidence that such person is an “agent of a foreign powerâ€.
I do not presume to assume that any electronic eavesdropping on US citizens is allowed. certainly, it isn't. nor should it be. that wasn't the context.
from the same FISCoR ruling:
U.S. persons may be authorized targets, and the surveillance is part of an investigative process often designed to protect against the commission of serious crimes such as espionage, sabotage, assassination, kidnaping, and terrorist acts committed by or on behalf of foreign powers. Intelligence and criminal law enforcement tend to merge in this area. . . . [S]urveillances conducted under [FISA] need not stop once conclusive evidence of a crime is obtained, but instead may be extended longer where protective measures other than arrest and prosecution are more appropriate.
January 2nd, 2006 at 6:14 pmAnd when you boil all that down what you are left with is that if the link to al Qaeda is established then there is no problem in regard to lack of warrants for wiretaps. Which in turn makes Judd here full of shit when he talks about this hurting cases against actual al Qaeda operatives which are brought before a court.
Not necessarily. It depends on how the determination of al-Qaida affiliation was made. If the "credible evidence" was obtained illegally, then any evidence obtained thereby would likely be inadmissable (poisonous tree and all that). A motion for discovery would require that the prosecution divulge all evidence and how it was obtained. See FISA § 1806.
January 2nd, 2006 at 6:17 pmI do not presume to assume that any electronic eavesdropping on US citizens is allowed. certainly, it isn’t. nor should it be. that wasn’t the context.
from the same FISCoR ruling:
U.S. persons may be authorized targets, and the surveillance is part of an investigative process often designed to protect against the commission of serious crimes such as espionage, sabotage, assassination, kidnaping, and terrorist acts committed by or on behalf of foreign powers. Intelligence and criminal law enforcement tend to merge in this area. . . . [S]urveillances conducted under [FISA] need not stop once conclusive evidence of a crime is obtained, but instead may be extended longer where protective measures other than arrest and prosecution are more appropriate.
But this context still doesn't have anything to do with inherent powers to conduct warrantless searches. This has to do with the so-called "wall" between foreign intelligence investigations and law enforcement investigations. This is what the FISCoR hearing was all about. The original FISA legislation had said that FISA warrants could only be granted when their "primary purpose" was national security. The patriot act modified that so that warrants could be granted when national security was "a significant purpose". The FISCoR decision was about interpreting that change. You should read this article. Check out the related articles on the same page too.
January 2nd, 2006 at 6:56 pmBut this context still doesn’t have anything to do with inherent powers to conduct warrantless searches
but the court addressed it in their ruling:
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power
the article doesn't address much outside of Leahy's concern and the ACLU's unhappiness. not surprising, since the court didn't find the ACLU's amici very convincing. how about this article?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0512210142dec21,1,2062394.story?coll=chi-technology-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
January 2nd, 2006 at 7:25 pmBush skirted the law and the FISA courts (who very rarely refuse an application) because he was not limiting his spying to terrorists. He wants to spy on Americans, and Justice Dept. officials balked. Wiretapping guys named Mohammed will lead to guys named Murphy; eavesdropping on mosques will lead to spying Quaker meetings. It is a simplistic notion to think Bush's abuse of power is self-limiting. Americans have guaranteed personal and civil liberties which must not be trampled, but safeguarded by the Constitution.
January 2nd, 2006 at 7:35 pmWhen Bush takes the law into his own hands as interpreter and enforcer he has violated the Constitution. He has in effect eliminated the work of Congress, who represents the people, and he has acted as final arbiter of his own judgment.
Bush is sworn to uphold the Constitution. The Congress represents the people. Bush is responsible to the Congress, and by that fact, to the people. We, the people, are in charge of the nation.
(When Truman wanted to halt the threatened steel strike during WWII, the SCOTUS denied him.)
but the court addressed it in their ruling:
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power
But this is not disputed. Everyone has agreed that the President has the inherent power to conduct warantless searched to gather foreign intelligence. The President does not have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches domestically because it is prohibited by the fourth amendment to the constitution.
the article doesn’t address much outside of Leahy’s concern and the ACLU’s unhappiness. not surprising, since the court didn’t find the ACLU’s amici very convincing.
Well the reason for suggesting it to you was to get across the idea of what the FISCoR decision was all about. The original FISA was primarily aimed at collecting forieng intelligence (I guess that's why it was called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). "Probable cause" and other criteria for granting warrants were quite relaxed in comparison with requirements for obtaining warrants for domestic surveillance for criminal prosecutions. The "wall" was to prevent law enforcement from utilizing the relaxed requirements to get warrants for domestic surveillance because the FISA warrants would in most cases not provide the constitutional protections guaranteed by the fourth amendment. The patriot act weakened the "wall" by loosening the national security requirements for getting a FISA warrant. The FISC balked at this and refused to grant a warrant in some circumstances. The FISCoR overturned their refusal and upheld the patriot act. Essentially, that's it.
how about this article?
It's a good collection of case law and decisions, but he makes the same mistake that you do. Every decision and opinion he cites upholds the President's inherent power to gather foreign intelligence without a court order, but when he comes to his conclusion he simply says that the President has the right of search and surveillance without a court order. He does have this right with respect to the gathering of foreign intelligence, but he does not have this right with regard to domestic surveillance of U.S. persons.
January 2nd, 2006 at 8:03 pmWooberstank > You must work for Karl Rove because about 50%
January 2nd, 2006 at 9:27 pmof the posts on here are yours! How much $$$ do you get for defending Fuehrer Bush?
If they are calling someone outside of the country, or someone in another country is calling into the US, that communication is already covered by what NSA can legally monitor, without needing so much as FISA approval. Why does nobody get this point?
Also, if its "just a few numbers" he's monitoring, then one or 5 or 10 or however many FISA warrants would cover them all. But the description of "a few" contradicts the counts of hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of parties that these warrantless wiretaps seem to have targeted. Clearly, someone is lying, and something tells me the War Profiteer in Chief is still not being honest with us. I know, I'm shocked too.
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:00 pmWooberstank,
You were offered the opportunity to seek a different path. Your silence has spoken volumes. You cling tightly to your dogma, and your fears. You are not ready.
When you are ready, a Teacher will come.
Many have posted here out of a sincere concern. Those who are monitoring also choose whom to monitor. Bit by bit we see what has been hidden. It is one thing to spy on foreign powers, foreign nationals. It is quite another to spy on your own citizens.
Already Quaker groups have been infiltrated, in the name of National Security. Already peace activists have been monitored, in the name of National Security.
This country has endured such intrusions before, but at a terrible cost to those whom dared to speak out against the powers that be.
What is freedom, if the only freedom is to acquiesce to the wishes of those in power?
What is security, if the only security is through the force of arms?
O for the day when our first line of attack against terrorism is the Peace Corps instead of the Marine Corps! The battle against terrorism will not be won with oppression and repression, but through enlightenment.
Peace and Blessings,
Briseadh na Faire
Briseadh na Faire is Celtic for "Break of Dawn."
I am here to help.
January 2nd, 2006 at 11:19 pmSame goes for torture, kidnappings, civilian casualties, summary executions, etc. Concepts of universal human rights are funny like that… always a lot less serious outside one’s own borders.
I have spent two summers abroad studying International Human Rights.
I have stood outside the Parliament Building in Budapest and felt the hopes of souls murdered in that same square by the communists in the 1950s. Yes, I felt their hopes, looking at a new flag flying on their Parliament; the flag of the European Union, the hope for no more warfare in Europe, the freedom to freely traverse from Hungary to England and belong to the same community of humankind. I have sensed the collective guilt of Europe over the Holocaust, and their resolve to never let that happen again.
I have studied International Law, and the horrors that occur when Human Rights are violated. Those concepts are never funny, no matter where they are violated. To know that it is America which is violating Human Rights in the name of Freedom and Democracy saddens me greatly.
"A long distance call carrier with recently told me the exact same thing."
You mock what you do not understand.
You speak as a belligerant adolescent. Go then, and be comfortable in your ignorance, but do not inflict it on the rest of us. From what I have seen, most posters here seek reasoned discourse. That is a skill you lack.
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:51 amGood comment Briseadh post 166 > I think you have put Wooberstank in his place! I have always found it odd that those like Woober who defend unlawful acts, such as NSA spying, when confronted deny that they are doing so!
Woober tends to think that only himself is intelligent, and the rest of us are stupid or un-traveled, but he is wrong!
Years ago I was in the Peace Corps in Costa Rica, later I lived and worked in Haiti, also I have traveled in Europe and other locations too!
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:14 amAs For President George W. Bush > nobody really knows who was spied upon by the NSA, because Bush has lied so much about everything else! The Congress has to demand that the NSA Watch List be turned over to a Special Prosecutor to see who is on the list! If anti-war activists like Cindy Sheehan are on it, or Bush's Democratic enemies in the Congress, then he & Cheney must be impeached!
If those snooped upon were all Arabic or Islamic, then Bush needs to explain why he refused to get warrants from the FISA court! Since FISA judges would have no problems issueing warrants for wiretaps on legitimate suspects!
The real issue is that Bush bypassed FISA completely, which
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:59 ammeans that he willingly violated the law! That is grounds for impeachment, according to the Constitution, PERIOD.
Hi people, just to say, I think the work that Michael does is amazing. Truth is that life should be protected and preserved. This is an outright infringement on the American Peoples rights. Ironic considering that the only real reason that could be found for troops to occupy Iraq is because of Human rights violations which Saddam and his crew committed on the Iraqi people, and I say the only real reason because I think that these are some on the only valid things that were said about the guy.
It is I believe aiding and perpetuating the mindset of fear, used as a method of control in America. It seems that the entire nation has been programmed to live in fear. In times like that it is wise to step back and take it the entire picture. It just seems that the people in charge have been telling themselves that exact thing for so long, even they are starting to believe it. What is missed is the obvious, terror only works if the people are scared and act based on that fear.
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but George Bush did once say that he was trying to save civilization as a whole, and the American people as well. This could have a hint of truth to it, but not for the reasons thought. I got to thinking why it was that Bush was so intent on occupying a hostile land for no real reason. The oil came to mind, and as such the profits thereof, but I think there is more to it. Peak oil. Scientists estimate that in the next 40 years, our fossil fuel oil will be complete, and oil is currently on a downward trend. Once finished, it could mean the end of civilization, civilization would have no fuel. Or at least a president with an IQ of less than the average squirrel may believe that. If America is to control the oil on earth, it would survive this possibly incredibly devastating turn of events, America is in the best situation to fix these problems for the whole world, in doing so, save the world. It is worth a thought.
January 3rd, 2006 at 4:59 amWe as the American public cannot be fooled by the continuos assertion by this President and his hand picked administration statement, and now investigation by the Justice Department as ordered by Attorney General Gonzales, that leaking this secret program of warrantless wire taps is dangerous to America. Duh! the terrorists already knew before this whole fiasco, was revealed, that through America's Visa courts we were wiretapping their conversations. Please give me a break, the Justice Department should be investigating the Bush Administration for their illegal actions. This government was set up to protect American citizens, as our forefathers intened. They did not set up the Constitution to protect a Republican President, who should never have become President in the first place.
January 3rd, 2006 at 9:57 amYou don’t see that as a natural progression ?
Monitoring of oversees human networks which is clearly foreign intel gathering which leads to identifying domestic participants who then could legitimately be deemed agents of a foreign power ?
Natural, perhaps, but not necessarily legal. A slippery slope is also a natural progression. The president's inherent power to collect foreign intelligence ends where U.S. persons begin. Let's say that one of al-Qaida's several hundred number three people calls someone in the U.S. and the tape starts rolling. If the person called was Mohammed Atta, there is no problem -- MA was not a U.S. person; if the person called has already been shown through "credible evidence" to be an "agent of a foreign power" there is no problem -- people so designated can be spied on without a warrant; but if the person called is a U.S. person who has not been designated an "agent of a foreign power" then the government has 72 hours from the time the tape starts to roll to apply for a warrant. If a warrant is applied for and granted, then the evidence collected from the wiretap is legal and admissable. If a warrant is not applied for or not granted, the evidence is not legal and inadmissable. Similarly, "credible evidence" must be legal evidence. If what was presented as "credible evidence" was obtained illegally then any decisions based solely on such evidence are invalid.
And a motion for disclosure by the defense requires that the prosecution make known all the evidence it has collected, not merely the evidence it intends to use in its case. The prosecution cannot withhold possibly exculpatory evidence that it has collected. It doesn't have to present such evidence as part of its case, but it must disclose its existence to the defense.
However the only scenario I am considering here is the one this blog article describes… where you have a legit al Qaeda operative who has been brought to trial over actual communications with militants who is domestically participating in militant operations whether they be plans or recruiting or fundraising.
Even so, the admissability of evidence depends on how it was obtained. If the circumstances required a warrant and no warrant was obtained, then the evidence is inadmissable. If no warrant was required, the issue doesn't arise. But it is pointless for us to argue this here. It will be decided by the judges when the defendents file their motions for disclosure after the holidays are over and the courts are open for business again.
The only thing not clean cut there I can see is that non-state-based networks are not technically “foreign powersâ€, but the scenario where post-9/11 legislation doesn’t cater for this is not a realistic concern.
No, FISA § 1801 (a) “Foreign power†means— (4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor. So al-Qaida (and any group engaged in international terrorism) is a "foreign power" for intelligence surveillance purposes. Once someone is linked to al-Qaida by "credible evidence" they can be considered an "agent of a foreign power" under FISA.
January 3rd, 2006 at 10:04 amThe salient part of this question on the NSA listening to Americans is that using FISA leaves a paper trail! Without any warrents the administration gets rid of any checks on its powers.You can't prove anything wrong was done if it's just your word against the governments.Remember that this administration also has "secret laws" that you must follow, but can't be told what they are,even if you are a judge!
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:12 pmThe real issue is that Bush bypassed FISA completely, which
means that he willingly violated the law! That is grounds for impeachment, according to the Constitution, PERIOD.
Comment by Jay Randal
Jay Randal #168
There's a constitutional crisis of monumental proportions happening in this country. Once you impeach Bush guess who becomes your president?
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:17 pmBeing only half Irish, I must only suffer half the embarrassment of an Irish pacifist,Brisneadh na Faire. Please save your lectures re: the "collective guilt in Europe regarding the Holocaust" when Ireland remained conveniently neutral in WWII. Granted, an "army" of 7000 could do little (EXCEPT PITCH IN!) and brave souls joined the Allies, but save your wimpy smugness for some erudite conversation.
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:46 pmWhy does anyone think that someone is a 'terrorist' because Bush says so? Is it his sterling record ? WMD in Iraq, War is over now that Saddam has been captured. etc etc. This is a witch hunt. The most dangerous people in the US , according to government terrorist hunters are 'eco -terrorists-. Are we all afraid of Greenpeace now? This is group insanity. Terrorists (witches, communists) are everywhere threatening us. Any of us could be Jose Padilla. Picked up and jailed for three years for NOTHING.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:53 pmMy apologies for the misunderstanding, Aphrodite. When I said, "I have sensed the collective guilt of Europe over the Holocaust..." I was speaking as a shaman. I sensed it when I stood outside the European Court of Human Rights and saw a portion of the Berlin Wall. I sensed it again in Vienna, when I saw the Holocaust scuptures, and again at the British Imperial War Museum, when I toured the floor dedicated to the holocaust.
There is also a poignant bronze mask sculpture overlooking the North Sea at The Hague...
I did not intend to come off as demonstrating "wimpy smugness," but as having an appreciation of the terrible, terrible cost that has now given rise to the "never again" feeling I also sensed.
Again, my apologies.
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:51 pmAny of us could be Jose Padilla. Picked up and jailed for three years for NOTHING.
We don't know that it's for nothing. From what I have seen, Padilla is not a particularly ssvory character and he has been indicted on a number of terrorism charges, but these charges have been consistently downgraded from the orignal claims by the administration.
But the point of the Padilla case is that it backs up Judd's claim in this post. The most probable reason that the government did not proceed with criminal action against him is that all the evidence they had was inadmissable in court -- probably either obtaind through torture or illegal wiretaps. The only alternative was to declare him an "enemy combatant" and put him under military control where he would remain incommunicado until the end of his life or the end of the war on terror, whichever came first.
The problem with this was that while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the President's power to hold Padilla in military custody indefinitely, this decision was appealed, and case was about to come before SCOTUS for a decision on how long the administration could hold a U.S. citzen without access to a lawyer. By a serendipitous coincidence, shortly before this was to happen an indictment was handed up (see above) and the Fourth Circut Court of Appeals was asked to vacate their previous decision and transfer Padilla to civil custody for trial. The court denied this reques and wrote an opinion (warning: PDF) that was the litigatory equivalent of taking the administration to the woodshed for a good whuppin'. If you are fed up with the administration's legal shenannigans, it is a really great read, especially since it was written by a conservative judge who was short-listed for SCOTUS.
So the point is that if Padilla was guilty of what was originally claimed, then DOJ has no way to prove it and they have to try him on lesser charges. While these charges would still be enough to put him away for life (if they can be proved), they are not in the same ballpark with the original claims. Of course, it is possible that the original charges simply weren't true (as the Fourth Circuit COA has allowed for), having been based on a detainee whose information has turned out to be less than reliable. This is the problem with information obtained by "enhanced interrogation techniques". Most often it is what the interrogatee thinks the interrogator wants to hear.
In effect, what all of this illegal obtaining of evidence does is render the criminal justice system inoperative. And this is "a bad thing" because the terrorists are criminals and should be treated like criminals rather than romanticizing them as superhuman jihadis who are going to destroy "Western Civilization". The use of the military against "global terrorism" (especially when the military can't catch the global terrorists) simply makes them into folk heroes for their cause, in much the same way as sending the U.S. Army into Mexico after Pancho Villa (unsuccessfully) made a revolutionary deperado and someime bank robber into a folk hero. The bungling attempts to catch Osama bin Laden have made the U.S. look like the Sherrif of Nottingham chasing Robin Hood.
January 3rd, 2006 at 6:06 pmIn answer to post 173 big papa who asked:"Once you impeach Bush, guess who becomes your president?"
Yes at present, if Bush was impeached then VP Dick Cheney would become president, but NOT if he was impeached as well at the same time!
Whoever replaced them, even if Rep. Hastert became president, would be better than Bush and Cheney! Plus by 2008 elections the standin president would be too weak to win their own term as president, so a Democrat would be a shoe in!
January 3rd, 2006 at 10:56 pmIn reply to post 178 Wooberstank who said to me: "You are naive and dumb though Jay. And you are by choice"
I am NOT naive or dumb about NSA spying for years illegally,
perhaps even under Clinton, but it is Bush who got caught red-handed authorizing it, and he admitted doing so as well!
Woober I think you are very clever person, but you use your intelligence oddly by attacking everybody else posting on here! Tell us what you are for and what you are against?
Woober also said to me: "You don't need to beat up the story beyond that but if you choose to I will call you on your bullshit."
Is that a boast or a threat Wooberstank?
I think you are a disinformation officer working for the CIA or another agency, who posts on this forum to mislead other posters, or you are just a mean frustrated person!
Yes Bush broke the law and he admitted doing so, which is grounds for his impeachment, as well as Cheney's removal!
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:15 pmHi all,
January 4th, 2006 at 5:26 amsurely the Patriot Acts 1 and 2 contravene so much of the intent of your constituition that this discussion seems somewhat idiotic. Your country is well and truly shafted and its not from terrorism, which you seem to have a great problem getting into perspective. Compare the threat to gun deaths, car deaths, industrial deaths, cancer....etc.
The biggest threat, in my opinion, is the handing over of government to industry lobbyists, cronyism and nepotism. Conflict of interest doesn't seem to exist in your country anymore.
I'm looking forward to the next statement from the US telling me how your country is the greatest in the world and that you are the greatest nation, people, democracy, idealogue. Thank guys. Oh, by the way, I am not jealous of your society, I am in fact very pleased I don't live in it.
I wonder what the risk is of me now being 'tracked' by one of your heroic 'democratically' supported inteligence agencies.
Continue the navel gazing fellahs, 'one nation under God'.
Bye bye
Reply to wooberstank > you never answered my question in post 182: Tell us what are you for and what are you against?
Do you back and defend Bush no matter what he does or not?
Are you a disinformation operative or just frustrated guy?
As for Bush and Cheney being impeached together > that is possible and NOT a fantasy! Cheney approved of the NSA wiretaps bypassing the FISA court, so that makes him an accomplice in Bush's crime!
I am male, so call me a bastard lol, not a bitch!
January 4th, 2006 at 7:10 am#181 You are very confused. Induction and deduction thinking methods aren't the equivalent. Isn't the same, after a bombing, search for sellings of the same dual-use chemicals used in the bombings (you know? many bombs can be made with plain fertilizer), than netting every person buying a load of fertilizer or bug pesticide to use in his 3x3 feet garden. The first one is deduction, and wants to obtain the exact result of the search. The second, intends to generalize and, in the process, marks too much people with the "suspect" flag.
And induction is bad, first, because violates the rights of the ones mistakenly netted, if done without warrant, and second, is very inefficient. Sherlock Holmes (dont' rant me for using a fictitious person) is famous for his deduction habilities. He can deduct who is the homicide without interrogating, or spy every inhabitant of England.
And btw, answering to another of your posts, NSA is not such secretive, at least we know the head, the one who ordered (or one of the responsibles of) the illegal wiretappings, and their actions from 2001: Sen. Pelosi vs. Gen. Michael Hayden
January 4th, 2006 at 8:54 amAnd btw, the background checks records for arms are destroyed in as many as two weeks in many cases, thanks to the lovely pals of the NRA. So much for ECHELON.
January 4th, 2006 at 1:55 pmReply to post 189 Wooberstank > I think you like to argue with yourself guy, because I see NO reason for you to call every poster on this forum stupid > you are NOT brilliant by any means!
You seem to want to straddle the fence in here > saying NSA has been out of control forever, but then Bush's approval of illegal wiretaps is no big deal?
As for VP Cheney I do believe he is already running the government and Bush is his puppet! And yes Cheney is a OIL creepo who caused the Iraq war to take place to seize its oil! So since you imply Cheney is a bad guy, then why insist that he becomes president, if Bush is impeached?
You infer that I am a "bigot" because I mentioned that getting wiretaps on Muslims would be approved by FISA court?
If Bush is interested in preventing terrorism, by Muslims, then that is who NSA should eavesdrop on with court warrants! I do not believe that Bush has a legal right to wiretap Cindy Sheehan's telephone or any member of Congress either! I do not understand why you want to muddy the issue on here and pick fights with posters?
So again do you support Bush or NOT? I want him impeached!!!
January 4th, 2006 at 2:10 pmposter 187 means to refer to post 180, NOT 181.
January 4th, 2006 at 2:20 pmWooberstank answered Spaniard in post 188.
lol wooberstank you want to have it both ways > calling every person on this forum stupid, but at the same time not wanting to appear as defending Bush or the NSA spying!
If you were truely against Bush, then you would NOT be attacking those who want him impeached for his crimes!
Again I repeat, the Constitution does not say that a criminal president has to be replaced by a criminal VP
> both must be removed from office for illegal wiretaps!
You muddy the water in here by saying that since NSA has always been doing some illegal eavesdropping, it is no big
deal that Bush authorized it, but it is a big deal > period.
Give up the fence straddling Woober!
January 5th, 2006 at 2:00 am"Give up the fence straddling Woober!"
Probably best to say things like that in posts where you don't avoid all questions put to you.
And get it through your head already. The people who want to impeach Bush are the same ones who want to make Cheney President. There is nothing implicating Cheney in this and since it is a matter of abuse of Presidential powers nobody expects him to be implicated.
You sticking your head in the sand and pretending this isn't the case effects nobody but you so you can stop referring to it as though you expect someone else here to care. Nobody has yet.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:20 am#196 Whose two? Background checks for arms and NRA? Background checks and ECHELON? NRA and ECHELON? Well, I will answer every one of them.
As for background checks for arms and NRA, the records are theoretically destroyed very soon (2 weeks), due mainly to the very strong lobbying of NRA whackos who want to have a ton of guns and no permanent control over them by the law.
Concerning to background checks for arms and ECHELON, you're saying all the time that ECHELON rocks and is already in place for everybody. It is defined as a data mining system to catch bad people, wiretapping the communications of everyone and crossing them with people databases, in short. Well, having a program in place as the ECHELON one, and knowing G.W. Bush, you can bet your NRA pin that every arm transaction would be included in the data base (if it is not already), and cross checked against "suspects" in the database (in the case that every NRA member isn't considered a "suspect" already, including the whole list is easier technically). And erasing every two weeks? No kidding.
And for the NRA and ECHELON. Well, I bet the ECHELON responsibles would be very glad on the success of including a list of known arm lovers in their monstrous data bases. You see? Not only peacenicks can be included wrongly and must fear for their rights being tampered with.
In the other hand, NRA membership, grants you a good deal of protection if you regularly buy a lot of firearms. If you're questioned by police or FBI, you can show your NRA license, and go away, protected by the strong lobbying capacity of the NRA. You ever can define the arms purchased as for "collecting purposes". A perfect middleman for terrorists. And there are 4 milion members. You trust everyone of them?
As you see, laws in place for protection of the people are necessary, or else, everyone will end netted and being a suspect WITH OR WITHOUT evidences. And without judges, courts and warrants (you know, the "paper trail"), is too easy to jail or simply kidnap and make a new case of "special rendition" of you.
January 5th, 2006 at 7:16 amAnd btw, about rifles and attacking tanks or armored cars with them: you don't need a grenade launcher nor an full automatic weapon. Some time ago I saw some info about a entrepreneur called Barret who modified years ago a 50mm rifle: Barret 50mm Rifles available for public. Since then, it was only possible to mount it in a vehicle, due to his brutal recoil. Well, the man tampered with it in his garage some time, and got finally a far lower recoil without lossing too much power. Nowadays, he has created an enterprise, and sells his 50mm rifle models, who can be used nowadays only with a bipod by an infantryman. The weapon is perfectly capable of bypass most of the armors. And sells the rifle to the army, to equip snippers AND TO CIVILIANS, because it's a rifle, and with the sorry excuse of hunting with it. Well, try to to shot a rabbit or even a deer with it. but don't expect to eat the meat, at least for the rabbit, if you don't have a spoon.
January 5th, 2006 at 7:56 amExcept for the part where background checks would be transmitted in a way ECHELON could pick up.
January 5th, 2006 at 9:30 amHowever this all seems rather pointless given I proposed earlier in this thread that security checks at gun dealers should be increased and taken out of the hands of the retailer who has no interest in the matter other than the sale.
#202 Evidently, an electronic transmission can send the data to everywhere in the world in the first second of the background checks, including NSA, ECHELON or the Disneyworld's web. And, as I've seen in the page of Barret's enterprise, a Federal permit is needed. So, the connection between the centralized federal permit database in Washington and the ECHELON one is even easier, and local laws can be avoided.
And yes, a retailer has only bussiness in mind. Some, even do an amount of black market, profiteering of their contacts in the arms world, or even distribute illegal arms, as concealable ones, or transform non-automatic and semi-automatic weapons in full automatic weapons. I find the idea of selling arms to the public crazy. And the idea of a mob heavily armed is very disturbing. Reminds me of all those lynching in your country.
Btw, my answer was intended for Wooberstank. Tank, are you Wooberstank?
January 5th, 2006 at 11:47 amReply to poster 196 Tank: Those who want Bush impeached for his crimes have no desire to have corrupt Cheney replace him! Both of them must be impeached for lying about WMD that never existed in Iraq, for lying about Osama being connected to Saddam which was untrue, for allowing torture to take place and illegal renditions of people to other nations to be abused, and for authorizing unlawful wiretaps of American Citizens without court approved warrants!
VP Cheney is an accomplice in the wiretapping, because he has publicly agreed with it and defended it as well!
Time for this thread to expire, so good comments everyone!
January 5th, 2006 at 12:19 pm[...] TALKING POINT: It is extremely important to remember, the wiretaps could have been done exactly as they were — but legally – with court orders sought up to 3 days after the fact. [...]
March 21st, 2006 at 3:28 pmThe Bush overtake of US is quite frightening. CIA poppy Bush, grandfather Bush selling arms to Nazi Germany using his political stance as WW 2 soldiers were dying and made a huge family fortune in US. These folks are banking on the general stupitidy of the American public,who after World War 2, Viet Nam debacle, forgot the conclusion that war, destruction, murder of innocent civilians, destruction of property and the environment might eventually take a toll on humanity.
April 3rd, 2006 at 6:28 pmThey don't care about humanity, they care about power. Their family values are to put a coke-head as commander-in-chief and support him with Bush values. Having watched the first invasion of Iraq, and the murder of Iraqi civilians, I was very dissapointed that Americans supported the "shock and awe"of a second invasion of innocent people living in a sovreign country. If, in fact they had WMD's, which naturally would be detoriated in 12 years, the UN investigators would have found them.
The monsstous murders by the Bush family have been noted by people who comapare their ideals with Hitler's "New World Order". A quote that poppy Bush often used, GW's handlers told him to quite using.
"Love it or leave it" were what Americans were told under George Harriman Bush. CIA director, vice-president of Ronald Reagan. How many innocent people have to die for their greed of family values, appointed to GW, elected firstly by a choice of the Supreme Court, and secondly by quasi illegal gerrymandering. As American soldiers continue to die in Iraq, you might question yourself as to why you support this president, and if his CIA former president father claimed to be totally clueless regarding the impending attacks on the the trade buildings, who died in the trade buildings, and why would not El Queida, if they hated our government, had eight months to practice bombing buildings under the Bush watch, would choose to murder clerks and waiters rather than hit Congress in session. They were paid assassins, obviously. Who paid them is questionable. Who profited, is obvious.
[...] Specter appears to have received assurances from the White House that, if his bill is passed without changes, Bush would agree to exercise the option and submit the warrantless wiretapping program to the court for a judgment on its constitutionality. This compromise is a sham because it makes optional what Bush is already required to do. Under the FISA law, the administration can wiretap persons inside the U.S. But it is required to demonstrate that the targets are agents of a foreign power, like al Qaeda or their affiliates. [...]
July 13th, 2006 at 3:14 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 8:06 amDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 8:54 pmFree Legal Aid Clinic
I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100%, but it's just my opinion, which could be wrong.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:58 pmNaked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 6:23 pmNaked Girls Naked Young Girl Naked Teen Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 6:51 pmNew Bussiness Credit
Business Credit International
March 19th, 2008 at 4:07 amgeneral motors credit card
Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:10 amReginald
What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: Our life is the creation of our mind.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:19 amBussiness Plans
I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:24 amSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 2:15 pmfly fishing school
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok.
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 amSaving Domestic Fuel
Hi - just wanted to say good design and blog -
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 pmGigi
He visto que muchos sitios antes y la mayor?a de ellos no miran esto bueno. No puedo esperar dej? a mis amigos saber sobre este sitio. Gracias por el contenido excelente.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:20 ambusiness opportunity affiliate program
Right. But I don't know that you considered all angles.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:23 amFree Granny Porn Lesbian Milfs Free Mom And Son Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 2:34 amGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 6:24 amagencies that perform criminal background checks
I'm with the earlier poster, this seems like a good idea.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:13 amProm Dresses Hat Hollister Clothing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 3:42 pmGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 12:52 amTv Satellite Devices For Computer
Thanks for this post!
March 29th, 2008 at 1:50 amGarden Sculpture
I enjoyed reading your blog. What a great thing it is to be able to share information like this on the Internet.
March 29th, 2008 at 8:44 pmRogelio
Your living is determined not so much by what life brings to you as by the attitude you
March 29th, 2008 at 10:16 pmGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 6:34 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 11:48 amKuvashan
Your site looks great! I have seen many other so-called sites and they have been far from good quality.Your site has all the key ingredients to pulling in visitors.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:04 pm