America... Spying on Americans

JustWonders wrote:

Two-thirds is a good round number As in, nearly two-thirds of those Americans polled who think the NSA monitoring policy is okay.

Note the way the question was worded. I think NSA monitoring of foreign powers is just fine so I am in that 2/3. I think it is ILLEGAL to monitor US persons.

Your argument isn't much of an argument at all JW since it doesn't address the issue of monitoring US persons.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

JustWonders wrote:

Two-thirds is a good round number As in, nearly two-thirds of those Americans polled who think the NSA monitoring policy is okay.

Note the way the question was worded. I think NSA monitoring of foreign powers is just fine so I am in that 2/3. I think it is ILLEGAL to monitor US persons.

Your argument isn't much of an argument at all JW since it doesn't address the issue of monitoring US persons.

I don't need an argument. Even the Dems realize 2006 is slowly but surely slipping away as long as they continue to let the radicals in their party have their way.

From a WashingtonTimes report a couple of days ago:

Quote:

"I think when you suggest that civil liberties are just as much at risk today as the country is from terrorism, you've gone too far if you leave that impression. I don't believe that's true," said Michael O'Hanlon, a national-security analyst at the Brookings Institution who advises Democrats on defense issues. ...

So, even if you have five Republicans who are "annoyed", you still have 56% of the country thinking Dubya is doing a fine job on national security issues Smile

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

It is both the "how" and the "what" that bothers me.

1. I'm disturbed by what I view as an end-run around the law. Not for the first time, Bush and his administration have sought a way around an inconvenient law instead of upholding the law. That bothers me on a lot of levels.

2. I'm not claiming there are no hypothetical circumstances under which one might need to break the law in order to save lives.

But wiretapping?

Here's my assumptions:
A. They are getting warrants through FISA for any wiretap for which they have a really solid lead.
B. They can't tap every conversation.
C. Their translators (by all reports) are swamped.

What follows from that is that they've got poor or non-existent leads for these warrantless wiretaps; and that if the targets don't speak a popular language then the wiretap is useless anyway. How much good can they actually be accomplishing?

So the Bush administration/NSA has trampled over the rights of people in the US, for no practical gain.

3. Now, even if they could capture and accurately translate every conversation I'd oppose it on general principles. We don't support that kind of activity for fighting domestic crime. Why should we support that activity just because we have a magic label to apply?

I posted this a while back, but didn't get much response. I'd like to ask the question in number three again.

Now, I'm talking about conversations where at least one participant is on US soil, and the government doesn't have the evidence to get a warrant.

Should the government be allowed to tap the conversation, or not?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

JustWonders wrote:

Two-thirds is a good round number As in, nearly two-thirds of those Americans polled who think the NSA monitoring policy is okay.

Note the way the question was worded. I think NSA monitoring of foreign powers is just fine so I am in that 2/3. I think it is ILLEGAL to monitor US persons.

Your argument isn't much of an argument at all JW since it doesn't address the issue of monitoring US persons.

What if monitoring that foreign power means monitoring US citizens?
I have called several foreign embassies,looking for some information.
Should my calls be deleted if the govt was monitoring those embassies?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

parados wrote:
JustWonders wrote:

Two-thirds is a good round number As in, nearly two-thirds of those Americans polled who think the NSA monitoring policy is okay.

Note the way the question was worded. I think NSA monitoring of foreign powers is just fine so I am in that 2/3. I think it is ILLEGAL to monitor US persons.

Your argument isn't much of an argument at all JW since it doesn't address the issue of monitoring US persons.

What if monitoring that foreign power means monitoring US citizens?
I have called several foreign embassies,looking for some information.
Should my calls be deleted if the govt was monitoring those embassies?

Why would the US be monitoring incoming calls to an embassy general number? It seems silly and a complete waste of resources in the first place. It is ILLEGAL in the second. The NSA and the CIA can't monitor calls originating in the US without a warrant.

The law says it must be BETWEEN FOREIGN POWERS. You are NOT a foreign power. (Or are you?)

0 Replies

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2005-12-30T154345Z_01_EIC055795_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml&rpc=22

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation to determine who disclosed a secret NSA eavesdropping operation approved by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks, officials said on Friday.

"We are opening an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified materials related to the NSA," one official said.

Earlier this month Bush acknowledged the program and called its disclosure to The New York Times () "a shameful act." He said he presumed a Justice Department leak investigation into who disclosed the National Security Agency eavesdropping operation would get under way.

Justice Department officials would give no details of who requested the probe or how it would be conducted.

The disclosure of the covert domestic spying program has triggered concerns among both Democrats and Republicans, with many lawmakers questioning whether it violates the U.S. Constitution.

Several lawmakers have backed a planned hearing on the issue by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania.

Bush and senior administration officials have argued that the policy of authorizing -- without court orders -- eavesdropping on international phone calls and e-mails by Americans suspected of links to terrorism was legal and necessary to help defend the country after the September 11 attacks.

The White house has sought to play down the impact on civil liberties, saying the program was narrow in scope and that key congressional leaders were briefed about it."

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
kuvasz: Next time why don't you save yourself some time and just post a link to Jack Balkin's blog entry?

oh, those stone casters who live in glass houses.

part of an earlier post, esp. the court transcript of the youngstown case came from that site, and it was referencing Youngstown specifically with executive branch allowances for torture i thought, not FISA.

actually the FISA tie-in was mostly from http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/12/inherent-authority-to-violate-federal.html

and oddly, i found almost verbatim commentary posts you have made here mysteriously appear on another site from which was gleaned additional data in a series of posts from glenn greenwald's site.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

one of the series of essays on the issue anyway.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/bushs-unchecked-executive-power-v.html

so, you might also wish to post the reference links from which you get your own talking points.

Certainly not from a blog entry, already prepackaged so I didn't have to do any independent thinking. I've read the case law and news reports. Other than that I've quoted from John Schmidt's oft cited article, and I'm pretty sure I quoted former DOJ attorney John Yoo. I've never heard of Glen Greenwald, much less read anything he's written. This latest claim is as spurious as your earlier claim that my arguments were coming from someone you called "Assrocket with Powerline."

But I'll tell you what ... let's do this: You highlight the portions of the Glen Greenwald article that you think I used (which I've never seen before, and which appears to be arguing your side of the argument), and I'll do the same to the text in the Jack Balkin's blog entry(s) you copied.

Should be entertaining. You wanna go first? (I don't have time right now or I would.)

0 Replies

FOX news reports about the planeed investigation besides others:

Quote:

0 Replies

Quote:

Should be entertaining. You wanna go first? (I don't have time right now or I would.)

Quit it. You guys go piss on each other in another thread if that is what you are looking to do. This is classic Tico derailment style and I'll have none of it.

To date, no proponent of the illegal spying has been able to successfully forward an argument as to how the Prez and his employees by extension constitute a competent oversight body of his own spying program. I would like to see that happen, or concede the point that they cannot possibly do so.

Those forwarding the Rassmussen poll should be reminded, of course, that the poll question does not mention 'wiretaps without a warrant' and therefore is not really relevant to our case here.

Woiyo, breathless and angry as you may be, you must admit that there must exist some sort of oversight/means of determining who is a terrorism suspect, and who is not. Traditionally this is an impartial judge, but now who is it? Our founding fathers specifically did not trust the agents of the government to act in the best interests of the people at all times. To break this, it must be shown that there is some sort of replacement authority, neutral, or the constitution might as well be torn in half.

Finn, I found your argument on the last page (in red) to be the most convincing of all the counter-arguments, but I (and I would expect most Americans) disagree that the president has unlimited power during wartime. I also would take issue with the WoT being used as a vehicle to grant wartime powers to the President, as there is no real forseeable end to the war and therefore a situation of great danger exists in granting those powers indefinately; imagine Hillary coming into office with unlimited power!

The Justice Dept. inquiry is going to be a doozy! We'll see if they try to sweep it under the rug.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

"Woiyo, breathless and angry as you may be, you must admit that there must exist some sort of oversight/means of determining who is a terrorism suspect, and who is not. Traditionally this is an impartial judge, but now who is it? Our founding fathers specifically did not trust the agents of the government to act in the best interests of the people at all times. To break this, it must be shown that there is some sort of replacement authority, neutral, or the constitution might as well be torn in half. "

I HAVE admitted as such.

The problem as I see it is that the current FISA system provides for a 72 hour "window" which needs to be expanded. From what I hear, the process to just complete the paper work to present to FISA (who rarely turns down requests) is extnesive and cumbersome.

0 Replies

And that's fine. But you do agree, then, that Bush has done wrong in simply ignoring the need for an oversight committee. And that this is potentially illegal, and should be investigated.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

If the FISA systems needs to be expanded, all Bush had to do was make the request to congress based on good, justifiable reasons. He ignored FISA, and broke the law.

0 Replies

Since there is no mandate saying who the oversight committee must be,why cant the branch of govt charged with the wiretaps set their own oversight comittee?

0 Replies

Quote:

Since there is no mandate saying who the oversight committee must be,why cant the branch of govt charged with the wiretaps set their own oversight comittee?

Because it is directly against the framer's intent of stationing a neutral party inbetween an agent of the governement and his target, in order to ensure the governement does not overreach its legal bounds. They didn't trust the government, and neither should you; there is too much room for individual failure.

The NSA is not a neutral party, they are directly controlled/controllable by the executive branch. Therefore they are, by the Framers' definition, not 'neutral' and cannot be trusted to make neutral decisions. Nor are they responsible to anyone if the wrong decision is made, and it hurts civil rights.

An oversight committee controlled by the same administration who wanted illegal taps in the first place is worse than useless. It directly undercuts one of the basic tenets of our constitution, namely, that an impartial party be placed between an agent of the state and his target.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

If the FISA systems needs to be expanded, all Bush had to do was make the request to congress based on good, justifiable reasons. He ignored FISA, and broke the law.

It was expanded.

LINK

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Since there is no mandate saying who the oversight committee must be,why cant the branch of govt charged with the wiretaps set their own oversight comittee?

Because it is directly against the framer's intent of stationing a neutral party inbetween an agent of the governement and his target, in order to ensure the governement does not overreach its legal bounds. They didn't trust the government, and neither should you; there is too much room for individual failure.

The NSA is not a neutral party, they are directly controlled/controllable by the executive branch. Therefore they are, by the Framers' definition, not 'neutral' and cannot be trusted to make neutral decisions. Nor are they responsible to anyone if the wrong decision is made, and it hurts civil rights.

An oversight committee controlled by the same administration who wanted illegal taps in the first place is worse than useless. It directly undercuts one of the basic tenets of our constitution, namely, that an impartial party be placed between an agent of the state and his target.

Cycloptichorn

Then by your definition,it isnt possible for there to be a neutral party.
The intelligence committee is controled by whatever party controls congress,so that counts them out.
The judges are appointed by the president,so that counts them out.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

why cant the branch of govt charged with the wiretaps set their own oversight comittee?

You can't figure that out?

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
why cant the branch of govt charged with the wiretaps set their own oversight comittee?

You can't figure that out?

Its done all the time.
The house and senate both have their own oversight committees (ethics committees),the judiciary has their own oversight groups (the BAR and its ethics committees).

Why should the executive branch and the intelligence gathering organizations be any different?

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know