America... Spying on Americans

Quote:

So, during the Clinton Administration, evidence existed (all of the information used in this article was available at the time) that:

-an invasive, extensive domestic eavesdropping program was aimed at every U.S. citizen;

I would love to see the evidence from the time that states that a domestic eavesdropping program was aimed at every US citizen. I can't find it in any of the articles qouted. There is concern that it could have been used that way. No evidence that it was.

Quote:

-intelligence agencies were using allies to circumvent constitutional restrictions;

This was happening and directly contradicts the first statement of dubious fact

Quote:

-and the administration was selling at least some secret intelligence for political donations.

Evidence of this is what? There is no claim that information was sold for donations by Poole. Poole states that

Quote:

One intelligence source for the story related that over 300 hotel rooms had been bugged for the event, which was designed to obtain information regarding oil and hydro-electric deals pending in Vietnam that were passed on to high level Democratic Party contributors competing for the contracts

and cites Insight magazine.

Insight Magazine says this about it..

Quote:

Official
spokesmen for federal authorities variously decline comment or say
they have no knowledge of any such enterprise. Seattle FBI
spokes-man Ray Lauer says, "I am not aware of the operation."
Secret Service spokesman James Mackin says, "We cannot provide you
with any information." National Security Council, or NSC, spokesman
P.J. Crowley says, "The White House declines comment." And other
White House and DNC spokesmen say they know nothing.
. . . . Julie Miller, a spokesman at FBI headquarters, says:
"Unfortunately, we can't comment on this. I know that's not what
you are looking for, but we can't comment. I'm sorry." When asked
whether she denies such a surveillance operation occurred, Miller
says: "No, I can't deny it. We can't comment."
. . . . Robert Bucknam, the chief of staff for FBI Director Louis
Freeh, refused to come to the phone when Insight called repeatedly.
Ultimately, Bill Carter, a senior FBI spokesman, said that while he
could not confirm or deny the existence of any national-security
operation, he is very concerned about the allegations of crimes not
being pursued involving prostitution and kickbacks.
. . . . "To be honest, I don't know what you're talking about,"
said Carter. However, after several minutes of conversation, he
said without hesitation that if any allegations of wrongdoing were
forwarded to him he personally would see that it is "forwarded to
the appropriate office.... We certainly would look into it." He
added that "we take it very seriously" and said that while it is
the policy of the FBI neither to confirm nor deny the existence of
any national-security operation, he would respond with any
available information. At press time, he had not.

THE BUGGING OF THE APEC IN SEATTLE

The Insight story reads like a grand conspiracy theory. FBI agents bugging the Hotel. DNC members in the WH giving information to donors. FBI agents taking thousands of dollars in kickbacks, going out to lunch and coming back with thousands in cash. Juvenile prostitutes provided to attendees but no police agency willing to look into it. A call for an independent council and Congress to look into it. Funny, how this great scandal in 1997 went nowhere. And least we forget what this is all about. It was a conference of FOREIGNERS. Not US citizens. So even if it was done it wasn't in violation of FISA.

0 Replies

parados - All I can do is post the article - it's up to you to find your "answers".

It's there.

And, if you are in disagreement with the author of the original article I posted, I suggest you contact Mr. Tate.

0 Replies

Oh, So if I posted an article that wasn't factual then no one should question it? I didn't realize that was the new standard on A2K.

The "answers" are that the article seems to be a bunch of crap. It misrepresents what other articles said. It makes stuff up. It reaches conclusions that are faulty. I see no reason not to point that out here.

0 Replies

And no one is arguing that you should point out whatever it is that you wish to point out.

Have at it Smile

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

And no one is arguing that you should point out whatever it is that you wish to point out.

Have at it

Actually JW, I AM arguing that I should point out what I am pointing out. :wink:

Or are you saying I am no one? :wink:

0 Replies

This is getting to be like "who's on first?" LOL.

0 Replies

A nice bit of evasion which removes any responsibility for admitting that the article wasn't factual after all.

Cute

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ACLU Sues to Stop Domestic Spying Program
ACLU Sues to Stop Domestic Spying Program
1/17/06

Civil liberties groups filed lawsuits in two cities Tuesday seeking to block President Bush's domestic eavesdropping program, arguing the electronic surveillance of American citizens was unconstitutional.

The U.S. District Court lawsuits were filed in New York by the Center for Constitutional Rights and in Detroit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The New York suit, filed on behalf of the center and individuals, names President Bush, the head of the National Security Agency, and the heads of the other major security agencies, challenging the NSA's surveillance of persons within the United States without judicial approval or statutory authorization.

It seeks an injunction that would prohibit the government from conducting surveillance of communications in the United States without warrants.

The Detroit suit, which also names the NSA, was filed with the ACLU along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greenpeace and several individuals.

Messages seeking comment were left Tuesday morning with the National Security Agency and the Justice Department.

Bush, who said the wiretapping is legal and necessary, has pointed to a congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that authorized him to use force in the fight against terrorism as allowing him to order the program.

The program authorized eavesdropping of international phone calls and e-mails of people deemed a terror risk.

The Detroit lawsuit says the plaintiffs, who frequently communicate by telephone and e-mail with people in the Middle East and Asia, have a "well-founded belief" that their communications are being intercepted by the government.

"By seriously compromising the free speech and privacy rights of the plaintiffs and others, the program violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution," the lawsuit states.
-----------------------------------------------------

On the Net:

http://www.aclu.org

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home.asp

Text of the filed Injunction:
http://www.aclu.org/images/nsaspying/asset_upload_file137_23491.pdf

0 Replies

I just saw that, bbb, I love it. Even if it gets thrown out of court, which it might not, at least it shows some people are not lying down like gutless cowardly dogs while this administration keeps chipping away at our rights.

0 Replies

Lets see,I am not a lawyer,but as far as I know,to file a class action lawsuit,dont you have to show that someone was hurt.

Assuming that the govt has done warrantless searches (which I dont believe),who has been hurt?
Can anyone show that they have been personally injured by what the NSA is doing?
Can anyone show that their e-mails or cell phones have been tapped?

If there are no victims,how can you sue anyone?

0 Replies

I guess we will have wait and see what they have to say in their lawsuit to know.

0 Replies

MM,
If the Govt did warrantless survellience, the hurt was a violation of civil rights. That is pretty clear. Such a violation IS HARM under the law.

Since the govt is the only one with the information of whether the class' civil rights were violated then the courts will allow this to go forward. There is no real requirement that harm to a specific individual be shown before a lawsuit can go forward. There only needs to be a reasonable expectation that there might have been harm. The harm is decided at trial. There is a very real possibility based on official statements by the govt that such violations occurred. Bush has admitted to doing it. Those statements by the govt and Bush have created the basis for the lawsuit. The courts can't ignore their statements. The govt and Bush just hasn't said who they wiretapped. The discovery process is where "who" will be found. Anyone that thinks they might be part of those tapped has a very real legal foundation to sue on.

Because the Govt is the only side with the information the burden of proof is on the govt to show they didn't commit the violations at this point. (Deb can probably tell you the legal reasoning.) That means that documents will have to be turned over. The govt's word is not good enough at this point because they have made statements claiming to do what has been alleged.

0 Replies

parados,
The question is IF.

Now,even in a civil suit,the accuser has to prove their case.
Granted,the burden of proof is less then a criminal court,but it still lies with the accuser,as far as I know.

Now,can anyone show that they were hurt?
Can anyone show thar their civil rights were violated?
Can anyone show how they were affected by this?

The answer to all 3 questions is no,IMHO.

0 Replies

Can a class action suite not be brought when the government violates the law? If not what recourse does the public have in that instance?

0 Replies

How come they didn't file a suit on behalf of Aldrich Ames? Just curious.

0 Replies

He confessed and it never went to trial.

0 Replies

That doesn't change the fact his rights were violated, according to all the noise about this now.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

parados,
The question is IF.

Now,even in a civil suit,the accuser has to prove their case.
Granted,the burden of proof is less then a criminal court,but it still lies with the accuser,as far as I know.

Now,can anyone show that they were hurt?
Can anyone show thar their civil rights were violated?
Can anyone show how they were affected by this?

The answer to all 3 questions is no,IMHO.

You are arguing that someone can't file suit until they win their case. That isn't the way it works.

The case doesn't have to be PROVEN to file suit. You only need a reasonable expectation that it happened to file suit. The trial is where it IS proved. Based on the govt statements it is LIKELY that someone could have had their civil rights violated. LIKELY is all that is needed for a suit. They don't have to show anything other than LIKELY.

0 Replies

BBB
The important issue is Bush's Supreme Court appointments is not abortion, which was a smoke screen to divert attention away from their favor of increased presidential power. Bush's SC appointments have all been advocates of Unitary presidential-Executive Branch power. Bush is looking for their support when he is accused of breaking the law and violating the Constitution. Bush is successfully packing the court to protect himself.

Libertarians should be alarmed at Bush's goals.

BBB

0 Replies

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know