America... Spying on Americans

That last post of your, kuvasz, was full of doublespeak. Specifically, this part:

Quote:

Now, if you weren't trying to distinguish the warrantless searches under Bush, with the circumstances under which Gorelick was arguing the President had authority to conduct warrantless searches, you probably need to explain the meaning of your above quote. What was your point in highlighting the fact that Gorelick was referring to "foreign powers" in her testimony?

york pointed out the position of the clinton administration on warrantless searches of foreign powers prior to the change in the FISA law on warrantless surveillanes that exluded terrorists. and york went so far as to deign to imply that since the clinton administration did not comment on this change they still maintained their earlier position on this matter

silence on an issue is not an admission of advocacy.

and i would point out that the subsection defining "foreign power" excluded definitions (4-6) as relevant to statute 1802, viz., terrorist orgnizations

shall we use the proper term here about Bush's actions, i.e., "surveillance" not "searches?" the reference highlight was obvious. it defined her subject matter, which was later further delineated by the definitions held relevant in FISA statute 1802.

If you want to make your point a little more clear, do so and then I'll try again to figure out what exactly you found wrong with the York article. Otherwise, I'll just ignore it.

0 Replies

so Tico, let me see if I've got this right. Your definition of a foreign power is anyone who doesn't defend blindly our good King George?

Yeah, I think that's about the size of it.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
So in sumation Tico it's ok to have "secret" surveillance of US citizens (meaning without judicial review) because Clinton may have done it (whomever)? Where, in your mind Tico, is the line that separates personal liberty from national security by a judgement that circumvents judicial oversight?

No, dyslexia.

Now, I'm going to put this in caps, because you've missed it 3 times now, I believe. (I'm also typing this very slowly .....)

I HAVE NEVER SAID THE WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE WAS "OK BECAUSE CLINTON DID IT, OR MAY HAVE DONE IT (ALTHOUGH IT CERTAINLY DOES APPEAR HE DID IT). WHAT I HAVE DONE, SEVERAL TIMES NOW, IS POINT OUT THAT CLINTON (THROUGH GORELICK) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT HE -- IN FACT -- HAD THAT AUTHORITY.

IF I EVER CLAIM SOMETHING IS OKAY SIMPLY BECAUSE CLINTON DID IT, I NEED TO BE MEDICATED OR TAKEN OUT BACK AND SHOT.

Right.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

so Tico, let me see if I've got this right. Your definition of a foreign power is anyone who doesn't defend blindly our good King George?

Yeah, I think that's about the size of it.

No, Kicky. I'm pretty much sticking to this one from the FISA:

Quote:

a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.

LINK

0 Replies

Quote:

0 Replies

Judge Resigns Over Secret Surveillance
Judge Resigns Over Secret Surveillance

Judge Resigns From Intelligence Court Apparently in Protest to Secret Domestic Surveillance Program

By GINA HOLLAND Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON Dec 21, 2005

A federal judge has resigned from a special court set up to oversee government surveillance, apparently in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program on people with suspected terrorist ties.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson would not comment Wednesday on his resignation, but The Washington Post reported that it stemmed from deep concern that the surveillance program Bush authorized was legally questionable and may have tainted the work of the court.

An aide to Robertson said the resignation letter submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts was not being released. Robertson did not step down from his district judgeship in Washington.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan would not discuss Robertson's resignation or the reasons cited for his departure. "Judge Robertson did not comment on the matter and I don't see any reason why we need to," McClellan said.

Robertson was one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees government applications for secret surveillance or searches of foreigners and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage. Robertson's term was to end in May.

"This was definitely a statement of protest," said Scott Silliman, a former Air Force attorney and Duke University law professor. "It is unusual because it signifies that at least one member of the court believes that the president has exceeded his legal authority."

Ruth Wedgwood, a Johns Hopkins University professor and defender of many Bush administration policies in the terror war, said that service on the special court is voluntary.

"If Judge Robertson had strong feelings that he thought would interfere with the needed objectivity, one could understand his decision," she said.

The court was established by Congress in 1978 and its members, appointed by the chief justice, do their work in private.

Quoting colleagues of Robertson, the Post said the judge had indicated he was concerned that information gained from the warrantless surveillance under Bush's program subsequently could have been used to obtain warrants under the FISA program.

0 Replies

How Is Spy Program Story 'Playing in Peoria'?
How Is Spy Program Story 'Playing in Peoria'? Here's the Answer
By E&P Staff
Published: December 20, 2005 1:45 PM ET
NEW YORK

In recent days, E&P has monitored the overwhelmingly critical response, at major metro editorial pages, to current revelations about the Bush administration's domestic spying program. Even conservatives such as George Will have raised issues about it, but he's another inside-the-Beltway guy. How is the story "playing in Peoria"?

We mean, literally.

It turns out, not all that differently. Here is a lengthy excerpt from the Tuesday editorial in the Peoria (Ill.) Journal Star.

*
An unrepentant, even defiant President Bush has admitted to authorizing the National Security Agency to conduct secret electronic eavesdropping on more than 30 occasions involving thousands of citizens, bypassing the court established by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to deal with such circumstances. He defended those actions, proclaiming that the procedure has only been used against those with "a clear link" to al-Qaida. Bush said the Constitution and Congress, when it green-lighted his request to wage war, give him such latitude, which he will continue to exercise.

Americans who appreciate what this nation stands for should respectfully disagree with the president's generous and arguably self-serving interpretation of the Constitution, which does not give any occupant of the Oval Office absolute, unilateral power, even in wartime.

Second, to suggest that this is "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists" is stretching reality. Indeed, there is nothing the president has done that he couldn't have within the already established rules. Yes, this is a different kind of war and Uncle Sam needs the bureaucratic flexibility to react quickly and discreetly. But the Justice Department already could move immediately to initiate electronic surveillance, with 72 hours to seek a judge's retroactive OK. Even without that, it can take just a few hours to get the permission of the FISA court, which operates behind closed doors. In practice, presidential petitions for wiretaps are rarely denied.

Graham and others are right to be worried about the integrity of the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans against unreasonable search and seizure. The president maintains there was oversight because congressional leaders were briefed. But it's not like he was seeking their permission. Moreover, if any congressman had revealed the existence of the program by objecting to it in any public way, wouldn't that have amounted to an illegal disclosure of classified information?

Meanwhile, the president says public hearings of his conduct would only give aid to the enemy. But isn't that an argument for conducting all government business in secret? That's unacceptable. Americans forget that FISA was established because of civil liberties abuses during the Nixon administration.

Ultimately, this begs the question: Is there anything a president can't do in the name of national security during a war that could last for decades? Bush's attitude would seem to suggest that no, there is not, even though he says "it is important that there be rule of law." His actions speak louder than his words.

Look, Sept. 11, 2001, upset all of us. No one wants a repeat. But a disturbing pattern has emerged, ranging from the administration's defense of certain torture practices to secret CIA prisons in eastern Europe, from the suggestion that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to POWs the U.S. holds to the president's ability to unilaterally declare someone an "enemy combatant." It took the White House 18 months to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

Is this a balance of powers issue? You bet it is.

Perhaps the president's heart is in the right place. He says he just wants to protect Americans. Who doesn't? It's really quite simple: The Founders were clear that threats to the republic could come from inside as well as out. No president, of any party, under any circumstance, should be permitted to act like a king. This is troubling.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
So in sumation Tico it's ok to have "secret" surveillance of US citizens (meaning without judicial review) because Clinton may have done it (whomever)? Where, in your mind Tico, is the line that separates personal liberty from national security by a judgement that circumvents judicial oversight?

No, dyslexia.

Now, I'm going to put this in caps, because you've missed it 3 times now, I believe. (I'm also typing this very slowly .....)

I HAVE NEVER SAID THE WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE WAS "OK BECAUSE CLINTON DID IT, OR MAY HAVE DONE IT (ALTHOUGH IT CERTAINLY DOES APPEAR HE DID IT). WHAT I HAVE DONE, SEVERAL TIMES NOW, IS POINT OUT THAT CLINTON (THROUGH GORELICK) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT HE -- IN FACT -- HAD THAT AUTHORITY.

IF I EVER CLAIM SOMETHING IS OKAY SIMPLY BECAUSE CLINTON DID IT, I NEED TO BE MEDICATED OR TAKEN OUT BACK AND SHOT.

Right.

Load that shotgun Dys, Tico will meet you out back of the barn. :wink:

0 Replies

parados wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
Right.
Load that shotgun Dys, Tico will meet you out back of the barn. :wink:

There was a specific condition attached to that ... but if it's ever met, dys has my permission ....

0 Replies

Tico,
You seem to be standing on one side of the line while shouting that you are on the other.

I am sure Dys is all ready when you admit what is so apparent to everyone else. :wink:

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Tico,
You seem to be standing on one side of the line while shouting that you are on the other.

I am sure Dys is all ready when you admit what is so apparent to everyone else. :wink:

Okay, I give .... what are you talking about?

0 Replies

Tico,
Quick question.

Is a US citizen working for Al Qaeda a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power in your mind?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Tico,
Quick question.

Is a US citizen working for Al Qaeda a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power in your mind?

They are an agent of a foreign power,and as such are NOT protected by any of our laws.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Imagine that this case is still going on; that Rove is indicted soon; that Iraq fails to get substantially better in the next six months. How is it possible that the Republicans aren't going to get creamed in '06? Unless the Dems f*ck it up terribly, I believe they will pick up some seats.

I have another question: what else is the NY Times not telling us for 'national security' reasons?

Cycloptichorn

cyclo

There are several fundamental barriers to change.

1) note how the folks here, like tico, foxfyre, JW, lash, timber, georgob, McG, MM and others have been moved really not at all by anything that has been revealed from WOMD through the incompetent managing of war and deaths of 2100+ military, torture, propaganda, indictments, incompetent crony appointments, the ubquitious loss of esteem and affinity for America throughout the western world, the present revelations on assaults on civil liberties and the constitution...and very much more.

2) note how these chaps turn daily to there own 'media outlets' for information and viewpoint-justification. That media machine, funded and put in place to propagate only conservative (meaning Republican) views and spin won't disappear, and it has proved very effective.

3) the increasing corporate consolidation of mainstream media outlets seems likely to itself forward coverage of political matters in a manner highly susceptible to bullying and to forwarding viewpoints that maintain the status quo.

4) the Orwellian or 'wag the dog' dynamics facilitated through promotion of never-ending war against a mainly invisible 'enemy' (not a state, but an 'ism') along with the effectiveness of manipulating a frightened populace.

5) the designed resistance to change in electoral outcomes through redistricting and campaign financing.

6) ideological extremism of the sort where all those things in point 1) become possible (eg, it's now OK to torture humans without trial) and where dissent against the sitting powers is commonly seen as treasonous, and where leaked revelations of dishonorable or criminal activities of the administration are commonly perceived as further instances of treason or, at the very least, prima facie instances of bias. Such ideological extremism puts previously unimaginable possibilites into play - spying on citizens, Diebold electoral fraud, etc.

7) the huge shift in wealth from the lower and middle class to the wealthiest minority (in large part, the same minority class that wields power) along with the decline in organizational bodies and institutions (eg unions, independent press) which acted towards assistance for those less powerful as checks on abuses of power by the powerful.

8) the purposive concentration of power in the executive branch and the diminishment of the congress and independent judiciary.

9) the purposive defunding and disempowerment of those groups within the polity which had traditionally voted Democrat and the corollary growth in funding/organization of new groups and institutions (large what faith-based is really all about) designed to forward Republican policy/ideas.

So, the good guys (moderates, progressives, social democrats) are up against some real barriers to regaining power in the US.

It seems very unlikely to me that the status quo (meaning the present situation as I describe above) will provide enough of a tipping point to really overturn what the right has achieved in the last thirty years. I think it will take a combination of substantial and undeniable negatives, almost surely including some serious scandal, to sufficiently discredit and disempower the new conservative movement and its machinery.

But that may happen. The Abramoff scandal, which really only politically educated Americans have in sight at all presently, could blow up and hit this machine with some deep effect. Increasing economic hardship across the middle class is almost certainly needed too. Growing perception of this administration and what it represents, that is, the new conservative movement, as being dangerously extremist and fundamentally anti-American will have to come to pass. Further understanding across the electorate of the dishonesty of these guys too will be necessary.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Tico,
Quick question.

Is a US citizen working for Al Qaeda a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power in your mind?

Yes ... an agent of a foreign power.

0 Replies

Sorry blatham (Mr. Salon.com) .... I just can't past that part where you haughtily exclaim that the conservatives turn to their own media outlets, and yet are reluctant to admit that you libbies do the very same thing.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:
Tico,
Quick question.

Is a US citizen working for Al Qaeda a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power in your mind?

Yes ... an agent of a foreign power.

That was the basis for Clinton having authority against Aldrich Ames.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think it will take a combination of substantial and undeniable negatives, almost surely including some serious scandal, to sufficiently discredit and disempower the new conservative movement and its machinery.

I agree with what you have written; there is a large job ahead of any progressive or Dem in the coming years, especially since the best one can expect is to inherit a bad situation.

I think that when it comes to scandals, we'll soon see that DeLay, Frist, Abramoff, Rove, Libby, AND the NSA taps will all be facing charges/investigation pretty much simultaneously. If Rove is removed, I believe the Bush admin's effectiveness becomes much less in the handling of all this. This provides a real opportunity for the Dems; if they choose to take it!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

That last post of your, kuvasz, was full of doublespeak. Specifically, this part:

Quote:

Now, if you weren't trying to distinguish the warrantless searches under Bush, with the circumstances under which Gorelick was arguing the President had authority to conduct warrantless searches, you probably need to explain the meaning of your above quote. What was your point in highlighting the fact that Gorelick was referring to "foreign powers" in her testimony?

york pointed out the position of the clinton administration on warrantless searches of foreign powers prior to the change in the FISA law on warrantless surveillanes that exluded terrorists. and york went so far as to deign to imply that since the clinton administration did not comment on this change they still maintained their earlier position on this matter

silence on an issue is not an admission of advocacy.

and i would point out that the subsection defining "foreign power" excluded definitions (4-6) as relevant to statute 1802, viz., terrorist orgnizations

shall we use the proper term here about Bush's actions, i.e., "surveillance" not "searches?" the reference highlight was obvious. it defined her subject matter, which was later further delineated by the definitions held relevant in FISA statute 1802.

If you want to make your point a little more clear, do so and then I'll try again to figure out what exactly you found wrong with the York article. Otherwise, I'll just ignore it.

your reading comprehension difficulties are not my problems.

0 Replies

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know