America... Spying on Americans

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
What rights have been broken exactly? No one has stopped any groups from meeting, they have not harrassed anyone for attending any meetings, no protests have been stopped, no groups have been disrupted in any way.

Incorrect, McG.

Have you forgetten so quickly the reason that John Bolton wasn't confirmed as the US Ambassador to the Senate, and instead was placed as a recess appointment?

From the Legal Times, September: "During the confirmation hearings of John Bolton as the U.S. representative to the United Nations, it came to light that the NSA had freely revealed intercepted conversations of U.S. citizens to Bolton while he served at the State Department. . . . More generally, Newsweek reports that from January 2004 to May 2005, the NSA supplied intercepts and names of 10,000 U.S. citizens to policy-makers at many departments, other U.S. intelligence services, and law enforcement agencies."

Illegal information was shared with many, many agencies. There is absolutely no telling what has happened as a result of this.

Sheesh

Cycloptichorn

What part of what he said did you find incorrect, Cyclops?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Where is Ben Franklin and his quip about trading freedom for safety?

He died back before the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" had been invented.

The Constitution was written before Weapons of Mass Destruction were invented, too. Should we throw that out, as well?

Though I know some righties would say, sure, just keep the Second Amendment.

0 Replies

I'm saying that there is no way to tell if anyone's rights (other than the initial illegal spying) were broken or not; there have been thousands of instances where the information was given to someone who may have used that information or not.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Where is Ben Franklin and his quip about trading freedom for safety?

He died back before the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" had been invented.

The Constitution was written before Weapons of Mass Destruction were invented, too. Should we throw that out, as well?

Though I know some righties would say, sure, just keep the Second Amendment.

No, but we have found the need to amend it from time to time. :wink:

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm saying that there is no way to tell if anyone's rights (other than the initial illegal spying) were broken or not; there have been thousands of instances where the information was given to someone who may have used that information or not.

Cycloptichorn

Oh. When McG asked you what rights have been broken exactly, you said "Incorrect."

I take it you meant to say, "we don't know if anyone's rights were broken or not."

0 Replies

This is probably going to come down to what laws were broken.

Of course the WH has said they haven't broken any. But then they didn't break any by leaking the name of a CIA agent. And they didn't break any by authorizing torture banned under international treaty. And they didn't break any by putting secret prisons in European countries. For someone that never does anything wrong there certainly seem to be a lot of allegations that are being investigated.

0 Replies

when somebody goes to a school and kills several people, the question everyone asks is "didn't anybody see this coming?"

When the trade center was bombed from inside people wanted to know why the US wasn't aware of terrorist activities.

When the Murray buiding was blown up and the US was found to have militias, people asked why we et those groups exist.

Since 9-11 there have been investigations to find out how it could have happened.

Now, the government is trying to make surre activities like these do not occur again, and you people are bitching!

Do you want the government to know about possible attacks before or after they happen?

0 Replies

ralph - there are procedures in place already for investigating possible terrorists.

Remember "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the US?" That's the paper Condi presented to Bush in Crawford the first week of August 2001. They had the information, and didn't get it from intercepting e-mails or telephone calls without a judges approval.

THAT is the problem. If they need the info to prevent a terrorist attack, ask a judge for permission.

0 Replies

Another rightwing holy grail. A national police force unrestricted by law or rights of any kind.

I can think of a couple of times peoples rights have been usurped. The government has no problem abusing the laws that exists.

First, there's the time that DeLay used the unPatriot Act to track down the AWOL Senators from the Texas Legislature when they walked out on his redistricting vote.

Now with Bush illegally approving this invasion of privacy, it seems that people are getting the message that this sonofabitch can't be trusted with this kind of power. It's not the first time the rightwingers have done this. We need it to make it the last. The good news is that with the Whitehouse abuses, even the Republicans won't sign on to this sonofabitches abuse of the law. Maybe we can actually look forward to the expiration of the unPatriot Act. Dec. 31 marks the exit of 16 provisions of the unPatriot Act. That's a start. I imagine that if the Whitehouse can't bully it's people into reapproving it, they will have to accept an extension. That's still a start!

0 Replies

How much more can the American public take before everyone wises up and finally take the trash out of the white house?

0 Replies

Don't worry, if you think he is trash, wait till you see what's coming. And IF its a dem, I wanna here your complaints then.

0 Replies

ralpheb wrote:

Don't worry, if you think he is trash, wait till you see what's coming. And IF its a dem, I wanna here your complaints then.

possibly jeb bush......hillary clinton, or now i hear fried rice might be up for it....... Confused

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Where is Ben Franklin and his quip about trading freedom for safety?

He died back before the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" had been invented.

Did "Weapons of Mass Destruction" change the definition of freedom or safety?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

What rights have been broken exactly?

I don't know if it's possible to "break" rights, but this is clearly a departure from previously recognized law regarding the NSA's ability to spy on americans.

Quote:

Does NSA/CSS unconstitutionally spy on Americans?

No. NSA/CSS performs SIGINT operations against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers. It strictly follows laws and regulations designed to preserve every American's privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. persons from unreasonable searches and seizures by the U.S. government or any person or agency acting on behalf of the U.S. government.

From the NSA's frequently asked questions.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
What rights have been broken exactly?

I don't know if it's possible to "break" rights, but this is clearly a departure from previously recognized law regarding the NSA's ability to spy on americans.

Quote:
Does NSA/CSS unconstitutionally spy on Americans?

No. NSA/CSS performs SIGINT operations against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers. It strictly follows laws and regulations designed to preserve every American's privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. persons from unreasonable searches and seizures by the U.S. government or any person or agency acting on behalf of the U.S. government.

From the NSA's frequently asked questions.

So, which part of the 4th amendment was broken? The part where surveillance was done during protest rallies? The part where public meetings were attended? I guess I am missing that part of this that has done ANYTHING to interfere with ANYONES privacy?

If you attend public functions, your privacy is no longer secured.

0 Replies

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure

Amendment Text | Annotations
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I think the question should be asked - which part of the 4th did the military honor? These people were meeting peaceably in their meeting hall, to discuss military recruiting at their local high schools. YET, their 'persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized' WAS VIOLATED. They were not out actively protesting! There was NO probable cause. Giving the military this much power is dangerous. If it is all so innocent, why won't the Defense Dept. comment on it?
Something smells in Denmark. Bad. Even more interesting is that NBC is picking it up.

0 Replies

December 16, 2005

Bush Apologizes for Phone Taps After 9/11Source

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I also see no harm in the peaceful surveillance of these groups either though. As far as I know, nothing more than some files have been created and no actions have been taken regarding those files.

The act of observing something changes it. Would you feel it was ok if one of "these groups" was the NRA or the Christian Coalition, or Bhuddists for Bush?

Quote:
If these groups have nothing to hide, and are not guilty of anything, they should not be worried about being watched.

This sort of thinking creeps me out. Why would someone with nothing to hide worry about being watched or searched or having secret files that they don't have access to being created and used by the government? Because there is no reason to trust those in authority that's why. Because if this is legal, combined with all of the new "powers" the government has, you could be disappeared based on what's in those files and have no recourse -- no way to challenge what you can't see.

This would all be A-ok if the people doing the surveilling and the data collecting never ever made any mistakes.

This sort of thing is disaster waiting to happen. Where is Ben Franklin and his quip about trading freedom for safety?

Here is what Franklin actually wrote:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Does the government eavesdropping, without judical warrant, on phone calls and e-mails to foreign sources represent giving up essential liberty?

Did the intelligence provided by this eavesdropping produce only a little temporary security?

Let's see:

9/11/01 - Terrorists fly two airliners into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon. Another, arguably headed for the White House, is forced to crash by valiant passengers.

12/16/05 - In the intervening years since the horrors of 9/11/01, there have been no other terrorist attacks on US soil.

Anyone who remembers 9/11/01 with honesty, will recall that thereafter, everyone was certain that another bloody attack was not only inevitable, but imminent.

It is inevitable that actions like these will eventually be taken for the wrong reasons, and that the powers granted by the Executive branch will be abused. It is also inevitable when this happens, the Press will reveal it and heads will roll.

It can happen here, but this is, in no way, a sign that it is about to happen here.

Why did the NY Times sit on this story for over a year and then release it the day of the triumphant Iraqi elections? Do any of my Liberal friends concern themselves with the implications of the Press trying to manipulate the democratic process rather than just report on it?

0 Replies

Finn,

You make a strong point that there has been no attacks on American Soil since 9/11. It feels like you are giving the impression that it is due to the governments excessive efforts and therefore justifys any abuses it has performed.

Firstly, the Towers were attacked in 1993, less than 60 days after a new President took over. I assume that since no attacks occured for the next 8 years, you would also call that a great success, since you consider 4 years to be so remarkable. This was done without the repressive steps taken by this administration. Although a major effort was made to attack during the year 2000 celebration, it was foiled by the administration in power. Again, this was done without the measures this administration has deemed necessary!

If the length of time since a previous attack seems to be a determining factor in how well the job has been done, I suggest that this administration is only half way there.

Secondly, if a new administration takes over in 2009, and then is struck say, within the first 8 months with another devastating attack, whose fault is it going to be?? Especially since we have spent $400 billion "fighting terrorism", with yet anither $100 in the queue. Half a Trillion Dollars, "fighting terrorism"!

Now after spending that 4-500 Billion, would you explain to me the victory in a national election that basically establishes an Islamic Theocracy. Is that winning??

0 Replies

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know