America... Spying on Americans

The master at beating a dead horse wrote:

I knew that Bob Graham had made that claim. The fact that Bob Graham made that claim was not confusing to me. What was confusing was your reference to Bob Graham using the term "those."

Then you are easily confused.

Tico, still flogging away wrote:

Summary of woiyo's post: President was authorized; NSA had authority; President takes responsibility for his actions; President notified Congressional leaders 13 times of his actions; Nobody in Congress spoke up until story leaked; Both sides were aware and must have agreed because they took no action.

Please point out where woiyo is claiming Congressional approval was sought.

woiyo wrote:

The President believes that as a result of the Authorization provided by Congress

Now in re-reading, he was probably talking about the president's insistence that the authorization to use force in response to 9/11 was authorization to spy. But since I am so easily confused by inexact language, I took this to mean Authorization provided by Congress.

You yourself, in your summary, imply that lack of action by congressional leaders was equivalent to consent, so I'm not sure what the overall point of this is.

Multi-Point ("Roving Wiretap") Authority
The USA-PATRIOT Act further expanded FISA to permit "roving wiretap" authority

Woiyo,

Quote:

Multi-Point ("Roving Wiretap") Authority
The USA-PATRIOT Act further expanded FISA to permit "roving wiretap" authority

The Patriot act allows the judges to approve of this, not the Prez to unilaterally bypass the judges and warrants altogether.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Woiyo,

Quote:

Multi-Point ("Roving Wiretap") Authority
The USA-PATRIOT Act further expanded FISA to permit "roving wiretap" authority

The Patriot act allows the judges to approve of this, not the Prez to unilaterally bypass the judges and warrants altogether.

Cycloptichorn

I am trying to inquire where GW feels he has the authority to do this.

Take a pill, I am not offering any opinion as to it's legality.

lets see,the police already have the power to search without a warrant.

If you get pulled over in a traffic stop,the police can search your car,if they see something "in plain sight" or if they have probable cause.
If you are acting suspicious,thats probable cause.
If they see a crack pipe on the seat,that is considered "plain sight" and gives them probable cause.

You and your baggage are x-rayed or run thru a metal detector when you get on a plane,doesnt that qualify as a warrantless search?

So,there are many ways police can legally search your vehicle or person without a warrant.

Are you willing to outlaw all of these methods also?

Drew,
The claim was made that warrantless searches are illegal.
I just showed that they arent illegal.

High-court nominee asked about Bush spy program


Dec 19, 7:56 PM (ET)

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A key Republican senator asked Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito on Monday about President George W. Bush's domestic spying order and whether war gives the president a blank check when it comes to civil liberties.

In a letter to Alito, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, who will preside at Alito's Senate confirmation hearing next month, also asked what approach he would use to assess Bush's authority.

"Historically, the court has shied away from checking executive power while a military conflict was going on," Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, wrote the 55-year-old conservative in preparation for the hearing set to begin January 9.

"Pursuant to your jurisprudential framework and understanding of the separation of powers, do you believe the court's reluctance to decide these issues is justified?" Specter added.

With lawmakers in both parties raising questions, Specter has promised a separate hearing on Bush's recently disclosed order to permit eavesdropping by the National Security Agency, without court approval, on Americans with suspected terrorist ties.

WHAT O'CONNOR SAID

Specter noted that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in a separate matter, recently said, "war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

"Do you agree?" Specter asked Alito, who if confirmed by the full Senate would replace the retiring O'Connor on the high court.

Specter added: "In light of Justice O'Connor's statement, what jurisprudential theory would you invoke to evaluate the limits on the president's authority to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens without going through the court system?"

Bush has maintained the U.S. Constitution provided him the authority to permit the eavesdropping to defend the nation.

The administration also argued Bush obtained such authority in the congressional resolution passed after the September 11, 2001, attacks to respond with "all necessary and appropriate force."

Specter wrote Alito: "What jurisprudential approach would you use to determine whether this resolution gives the president the power to issue an executive order permitting the National Security Agency to conduct domestic surveillance on international communications without first obtaining a search warrant?"

Specter also asked Alito under what "jurisprudential theory" would he determine Bush's power to have taken such action as commander in chief.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, also wrote Alito on Monday, saying he planned to ask him about Bush's eavesdropping order at his confirmation hearing.

Debra_Law wrote:

But you cannot escape the fact that the president did not request their approval of his program--they were merely informed. The congressional leaders he informed were NOT ALLOWED to discuss these national security reports with anyone--not even legal counsel to address their concerns about the legality of Bush's domestic spying program.

Please spare me the NOT ALLOWED TO TELL ANYONE line of BS. Anyone of those "leaders" should have had the guts to confront that which they believe is wrong. They could have taken their case to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Intle Committee or the media.

They were not allowed to tell anyone...PLEASE SPARE ME THE CHILDISH EXCUSES.

United States Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence

July 17, 2003

Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am writing to reiterate my concerns regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly, the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance.

Without more information and [without] the ability to draw on any independent legal or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.

Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefelller

GW did not try to hide anything here. He supposedly told the "leaders" what he was doing, why and to who he was going to do it to. He even went before the Nation and siad he has done it and will continue to do it.,

I find that somewhat refreshing. Imagine a LEADER taking responsibility for their actions.

What rights are violated when the cops do a warrantless search of your car?

FreeDuck wrote:

and this will be a very very long thread of nothing but corrections of one another that add nothing to the conversation. Perhaps that's what you're aiming for.

I think thats exactly what Tico is aiming for in instances like these.

mysteryman wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

If nothing is disturbed,then nothing was moved.
If nothing was moved,then nothing was taken.
If nothing was taken,then I dont care.

Really? Pictures made of your financial records, copies made of your rolodex and E-mail contacts, your home invaded?

Apparently you welcome being searched at any time so long as the police do not steal during their visit?????

And I didn't ask if you cared. I asked if your rights were violated.

If I dont know that it happened,or cant prove that it happened,then how can I claim my rights were violated?

truly, ignorance is bliss

mysteryman wrote:

What rights are violated when the cops do a warrantless search of your car?

Start a thread on that, why don't you?

DrewDad wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

What rights are violated when the cops do a warrantless search of your car?

Start a thread on that, why don't you?

Why,you brought it up?