America... Spying on Americans

Ticomaya wrote:

I'll repeat MM's question ... Aldrich Ames?

Nothing in FISA prevents them from searching Aldrich Ames provided they have probable cause, which I'm sure they did.

Parados, Squinney, DrewDad, Kuvasz, Debra, FreeDuck, and anyone I may have forgotten --

Your patience is obviously much greater than mine. I have pretty much given up on this thread. So I just want you to know that I'm sitting here, reading along, occasionally tipping my hat to you.

Are you upset about WHAT GW did or HOW he did it.

Ticomaya wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

tico, you really should go back to the original sources instead of relying on the selective cherry picking of propagandists like York.

<snip>

gorelick was talking about warrantless searches conducted on foreign powers. As cited earlier, an even more clear distinction was made under FISA as to what "Foreign Power" was defined as, and still further which target definition was included as acceptable for warrantless electronic surveillance authorization.

Al Qaeda is a "foreign power." I would certainly argue it is a "group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor." Do you disagree?

Your argument is with the Congress of the United States. They wrote the FISA law. and while the definition of a "foreign power" under 1801 included "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore" they also specifically did not include such enties as subject to warrantless surveillance legally under the section 1802.

so just what are you trying to accomplish here with that question? the statutes already answered that question. just because you don't like the answer you ask it again?

Tico wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

<snip>

York is stating that since Gorelick maintained that Clinton had the authority to conduct warrantless searches on foreign powers and their agents, then Bush had a right to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on Americans on American soil suspected of terrorism, even thought FISA specifically stated otherwise.

Did York state that? Really? I didn't see Bush's name mentioned in his article.

haha, cute. I note that you didn't disagree with that assessment did you?

york wrote that article without any context of current events. imagine that. all on his own he went back and reviewed "obscure" testimony for an article with no relationship to the daily news.

York's Article

Are you upset about WHAT GW did or HOW he did it.

One question to the "wackers".

Are you upset about WHAT GW did or HOW he did it.

Ticomaya wrote:

I'll repeat MM's question ... Aldrich Ames?

Nothing in FISA prevents them from searching Aldrich Ames provided they have probable cause, which I'm sure they did.

Yet, a good argument is being made here also.'

"President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday cited three areas in which the administration has the authority to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance: presidential powers in Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution; the 2001 congressional authorization for the use of force after the Sept. 11 attacks; and the Supreme Court's decision in the 2004 case of enemy combatant Yaser Hamdi, a Saudi-American citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan who was held for three years without being charged.

On Tuesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan repeated the legal underpinnings used to justify the "signals intelligence."

"Under Article 2 of the Constitution, as commander in chief, the president has that authority. The president has the authority under the congressional authorization that was passed and clearly stated that, quote, 'The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force.' This was under Section 2 in the authorization for the United States Armed Forces," McClellan said.

"It is limited to people who have ?- one of the parties to the communication [who has] a clear connection to Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations and one of the parties [who] is operating outside of the United States. And I think that's important for people to know, because there's been some suggestions that it's spying inside the U.S. That's not the case," the press secretary added.

Gonzales told reporters that the Supreme Court decision on Hamdi reinforced the claim that the president was given wide permission in the Sept. 14, 2001, vote by Congress authorizing the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those behind the Sept. 11 attacks. "

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I'll repeat MM's question ... Aldrich Ames?

Nothing in FISA prevents them from searching Aldrich Ames provided they have probable cause, which I'm sure they did.

They did it without a warrant, FreeDuck. Why doesn't that make you aghast?

Why does the warrantless search of Aldrich Ames not concern you?

woiyo wrote:

One question to the "wackers".

Are you upset about WHAT GW did or HOW he did it.

Assuming the role of bushwacker for a moment (though I don't believe that that's actually what I'm doing) I am upset with what he did in this sense. To me the "what" is the fact that he circumvented the existing law which was enacted, in my opinion, in order to provide a check to presidential power.

I have a gutteral reaction to spying on Americans in general, but if it's necessary, and if the government follows the procedures laid out to ensure that rights are protected, then I have no argument.

On February 21, 1994, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrested a 52-year old employee of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Aldrich Hazen Ames, outside his Arlington, Virginia residence, on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage on behalf of Russia and the former Soviet Union. According to the affidavit supporting the arrest warrant, these activities had begun in April 1985, and continued to the time of the arrest. Ames's wife, Maria del Rosario Casas Ames, was arrested inside the residence on the same charges shortly after her husband was taken into custody.

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I'll repeat MM's question ... Aldrich Ames?

Nothing in FISA prevents them from searching Aldrich Ames provided they have probable cause, which I'm sure they did.

They did it without a warrant, FreeDuck. Why doesn't that make you aghast?

Why does the warrantless search of Aldrich Ames not concern you?

A link?

woiyo wrote:

One question to the "wackers".

Are you upset about WHAT GW did or HOW he did it.

Assuming the role of bushwacker for a moment (though I don't believe that that's actually what I'm doing) I am upset with what he did in this sense. To me the "what" is the fact that he circumvented the existing law which was enacted, in my opinion, in order to provide a check to presidential power.

I have a gutteral reaction to spying on Americans in general, but if it's necessary, and if the government follows the procedures laid out to ensure that rights are protected, then I have no argument.

BTW, FD. I'm confident you'll be aghast at the Ames search.

Your search - "warrantless search of Aldrich Ames" - did not match any documents.

woiyo wrote:

Are you upset about WHAT GW did or HOW he did it.

Without accepting your label of a "whacker", my answer is that I don't understand your distinction. My problem is that George Bush broke the constitution he had sworn to uphold, which is a "what". He broke the constitution by telling the NSA to wiretap American citizens without a warrant, which is a how. On a somewhat milder level, I have a problem with Bush lying to the American people in 2004, when he told them that wiretaps on them continue to require a warrant. That's a how again.

May I ask why you are making this distinction, and why it matters to you?

since he boldly told certain leaders