9
   

America... Spying on Americans

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 01:46 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
nimh wrote:
What's the need you see to monitor without a court order? I mean, if getting a FISA warrant can be done in hours, and is basically a rubberstamp procedure (is that what you said earlier?)?

Actually, it was someone arguing on your side that described it as basically a rubberstamp process.

Dunno whether there was also someone on my side that described it as such, but you actually did, too:

FreeDuck wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
do not find this slight infringement -- which in practice, as has already been discussed, is generally little more than the circumventing of the rubber stamp treatment by the reviewing magistrate -- to be that invasive

If it was a rubber stamp, why circumvent it?

Good question, I thought.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 01:51 pm
As is this...
FreeDuck wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
If it takes hours to get the warrant, and you don't have hours ...

The law allows listening in without a warrant and notifying the court after the fact -- up to 72 hours, so tell me again why they administration needed to go around the court.

Any other need you see to monitor without a court order?

(Hoping Tico can be kept from getting away with derailing the argument on his assertions by provoking some indignant digression on dreadlocked lefties...)
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 01:59 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, most - if not all - lefties I know (they are actually not US-style liberals but really socialists) are either Evangelicals or Catholics like me.

And we of course say "Merry Christmas".


Well, that must be because you are masquerading as productive members of society.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 02:03 pm
We are, indeed, even two priests are amon them (in our local socialist association). :wink:
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 02:52 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:
I'm afraid I know quite a few of your leftist friends.

The easiest way to spot a liberal is when they don't wear a disguise. In that instance, they'll be the one wearing dreadlocks that smell like a combination of giant buds of marijuana and dried sweat, and carrying one of their children in a hemp baby sling.

However, when they are masquerading as productive members of society, it becomes a little harder to pick them out. But I usually know 'em when I see 'em.


This says a lot about you.


Hopefully it says I have a sense of humor.

If you think otherwise, perhaps it says a lot about you.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 02:54 pm
nimh wrote:
(Hoping Tico can be kept from getting away with derailing the argument on his assertions by provoking some indignant digression on dreadlocked lefties...)


Would it have been funnier if I described the dreads as being blue in color?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 03:06 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Hopefully it says I have a sense of humor.


Perhaps if it had been funny...
0 Replies
 
Stevepax
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 03:39 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:

I'm afraid I know quite a few of your leftist friends.

For instance, this time of the year, they are usually the one's saying "Happy Holidays," instead of "Merry Christmas."


Oh, really? You might want to rethink your stereotyping. Some may be Jews or Hindus or Moslems, and they may even be conservatives...


I was thinking the same thing. Not only is he a racist, he's a bigot about religion. What a bloody surprise.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 03:44 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
If it takes hours to get the warrant, and you don't have hours ...


The law allows listening in without a warrant and notifying the court after the fact -- up to 72 hours, so tell me again why they administration needed to go around the court.


I can't answer that one ... I think they should have, if they didn't. As I've said, it makes sense if it's an emergency need, but as you point out they have 72 hours to get the probable cause finding with the FISA court, so that doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. I imagine there are facts to which we are not privy.

Of course if the Judge chooses to not grant the warrant if applied for within the 72 hours, what result? The FISA simply says no information obtained or evidence derived from the surveillance may be used as evidence at trial, or otherwise disclosed. 50 U.S.C. §1805(f)(2). Let's say all of the monitored conversations in the secret program consisted of nothing more than facts where the judge wasn't going to grant the warrant because of no probable cause. Doesn't §1805(f)(2) allow for that?

Interesting to note in the Washington Post article yesterday, former Sen. Bob Graham is claiming he didn't come away from his briefing knowing the particulars of this secret program involved eavesdropping on domestically initiated international calls. He said: "I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy." One is left with the impression that there is more to the story than has been revealed. Particularly with the statement in the Times: "we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program -- withholding a number of technical details -- in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record." I personally don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to reveal to the terrorists what methods and technology we utilize to monitor conversations. My guess is there is a change in technology being used, and we'll all find out about it at some later point in time. (Perhaps when the Times finds it expedient for its purposes to tell all.)

From this morning's press conference:

Quote:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Getting back to the domestic spying issue for a moment. According to FISA's own records, it's received nearly 19,000 requests for wiretaps or search warrants since 1979, rejected just five of them. It also operates in secret, so security shouldn't be a concern, and it can be applied retroactively. Given such a powerful tool of law enforcement is at your disposal, sir, why did you see fit to sidetrack that process?

THE PRESIDENT: We used the process to monitor. But also, this is a different -- a different era, a different war, Stretch. So what we're -- people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent. I keep saying that, but this is a -- it requires quick action.

And without revealing the operating details of our program, I just want to assure the American people that, one, I've got the authority to do this; two, it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and, three, we're guarding your civil liberties. And we're guarding the civil liberties by monitoring the program on a regular basis, by having the folks at NSA, the legal team, as well as the inspector general, monitor the program, and we're briefing Congress. This is a part of our effort to protect the American people. The American people expect us to protect them and protect their civil liberties. I'm going to do that. That's my job, and I'm going to continue doing my job.


Sure seems pretty much like a rubber stamp to me.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 03:45 pm
Tico wrote

Quote:
I think one of the most repugnant things an American can do is join with those who hurt his government's efforts to protect its citizens, and then have the temerity to claim they are only doing it because they love their country.


In other words when the wannabe fascist in the white house breaks the law and ignores the constitution claiming it's for our protection we should genuflect to him, as you do, and say yes master.

That is what is repugnant and flys in the face of what America used to stand for.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 03:50 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Hopefully it says I have a sense of humor.

If you think otherwise, perhaps it says a lot about you.


Perhaps if it had been funny...


Well, I found it amusing. Sorry you didn't. Perhaps you are a little sensitive?

But I understand you folks being a little upset these days, what with all the positive news coming from Iraq and all. Not exactly the kind of news that bodes well for your party.


Oh well. Happy Holidays.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 03:52 pm
Quote:
My guess is there is a change in technology being used, and we'll all find out about it at some later point in time. (Perhaps when the Times finds it expedient for its purposes to tell all.)


I have little doubt that this has to do with real-time monitoring of cel phone networks. The last 5 years have seen an explosive jump in cel phone use amongst every single industrial population in the earth, so conquering this technology is an important strategy.

And, easy to do. The phone companies have been compliant; and the actual eavesdropping is as simple as placing a computer on a cel recieving tower.

The cel phone is an attractive communications device for the terrorists, for they have the ability to change lines/numbers quickly, and the uneducated perception that they are hard to trace, either in location or content.

My guess would be that a large part of the NSA/pentagon's 'budget' has gone into the creation of a very powerful cel phone tapping network. Like Echelon, but better. Much better.

Cheney left out the part, apparently, where they mentioned they were going to use this to listen to people who, according the Washington Post article, not suspected of being or having ties to terrorism. That's where things get hairy to me...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 03:53 pm
Quote:
But I understand you folks being a little upset these days, what with all the positive news coming from Iraq and all. Not exactly the kind of news that bodes well for your party.


I'm not sure how an Islaamic Iraq, friendly to Iran, is good news for anyone's party, really...

You may recall that Iran is also quite Democratic.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Stevepax
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 03:58 pm
au1929 wrote:
Tico wrote

Quote:
I think one of the most repugnant things an American can do is join with those who hurt his government's efforts to protect its citizens, and then have the temerity to claim they are only doing it because they love their country.


In other words when the wannabe fascist in the white house breaks the law and ignores the constitution claiming it's for our protection we should genuflect to him, as you do, and say yes master.

That is what is repugnant and flys in the face of what America used to stand for.


AU, Like I've said so many times, he can't get off his knees to BushCo, what would you expect.
0 Replies
 
Stevepax
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 04:04 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
But I understand you folks being a little upset these days, what with all the positive news coming from Iraq and all. Not exactly the kind of news that bodes well for your party.


I'm not sure how an Islaamic Iraq, friendly to Iran, is good news for anyone's party, really...

You may recall that Iran is also quite Democratic.

Cycloptichorn


Good news only to a diseased mind!
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 04:06 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Cheney left out the part, apparently, where they mentioned they were going to use this to listen to people who, according the Washington Post article, not suspected of being or having ties to terrorism. That's where things get hairy to me...

Cycloptichorn


Can you point that out to me? I missed that in the WaPo article.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 04:08 pm
Here's what I learned at GOPUSA today ...

Quote:
Man is not free unless government is limited ... As government expands, liberty contracts.
Ronald Reagan

It's from his farewell speech.

Was anyone in the Republican party listening to him?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 04:34 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
parados wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I'll ask again ... what does that have to do with your brother?


The absurdity of inferring that people who dissent from government policies are acting in a manner designed to hurt our armed forces, especially those of us who have worn a military uniform and with family in harm's way.


I don't think Asherman was suggesting you wilfully harmed your government or your brother. It's just a by-product of your actions.



A by-product of his actions? Cite the time and place that kuvasz's actions have created this by-prodcut. Cite the SPECIFIC harm. Hypotheticals don't count. it must be specific and provable.

Sorry Tico but your silly claim is just that, silly. There is no evidence that disagreeing with the President has caused harm to anyone let alone harmed them "willfully."


After you cite the specific harm to your or any one else's civil liberties brought about by this eavesdropping program. Cite the time and place that it has interfered with your civil rights. Hypotheticals don't count. It must be specific, and provable.

There's no evidence that this program has caused harm to anyone.

I don't recall stating that my personal rights were violated Tico. You however did state that harm was a result of Kuvasz actions. Deflect seems to be your only response.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 04:35 pm
During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.

On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."

But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."
NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.

The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."

One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.
Still, the Times repeatedly insisted on Friday that NSA surveillance under Bush had been unprecedented, at one point citing anonymously an alleged former national security official who claimed: "This is really a sea change. It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."

Now my question...
Why didn't the left complain about this?

We KNOW that Bush was trolling for terrorists,what was Clinton looking for?

And for more info,try these links...

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html
Read some of the press clippings on this ECHELON report:
National Post/Canada (February 19, 2000): The New Space Invaders
NY Times (May 27, 1999): Lawmakers Raise Questions About International Spy Network
La Monde Diplomatique (Jan. 1999): How the United States Spies on us all
Federal Computer Week(Nov. 17, 1998): EU May Investigate US Global Spy Network
Inter@ctive Week (Nov. 16, 1998): ECHELON: Surveilling Surveillance
WorldNetDaily (Nov. 12, 1998): Push for Hearings on ECHELON
Wired (October 27, 1998): Spying on the Spies
Baltimore Sun (October 18, 1998): Putting NSA under scrutiny

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm

http://www.echelonwatch.org/
"Echelon is perhaps the most powerful intelligence gathering organization in the world. Several credible reports suggest that this global electronic communications surveillance system presents an extreme threat to the privacy of people all over the world."

And here is an NSA document that mentions ECHELON

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB23/index2.html

And here from the BBC...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/654394.stm

My point is that it WAS NOT wrong under Clintons admin,so how can it be wrong now to do the exact same thing?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 04:48 pm
Bush Announces Do-Not-Wiretap List

Just days after the New York Times released classified information about eavesdropping by the NSA on Americans linked to international terrorists, President George Bush at a news conference today announced creation of a new website which allows people to voluntarily exclude their phone numbers and email addresses from NSA wiretap lists.

The new National Do Not Wiretap Registry (DoNotWiretap.gov) follows the successful DoNotCall.gov model of allowing citizens to opt-out of harassment by electronic means.

"If you're concerned that your civil rights might be violated simply because some al Qaeda member has your information in his cellphone or computer," the president said, "then go to DoNotWiretap.gov, enter your contact phone number, email address, and names of terrorists who might have you on speed dial and we'll let the National Security Administration know that you don't want them eavesdropping on you."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 03:09:54