America... Spying on Americans

Ticomaya wrote:

Gen. Michael Hayden, the former director of the NSA, spoke today concerning the NSA's surveillance program in question:

Quote:
. . . Now, beyond the authorities that I exercised under the standing executive order, as the war on terror has moved forward, we have aggressively used FISA warrants. The act and the court have provided us with important tools, and we make full use of them. Published numbers show us using the court at record rates, and the results have been outstanding. But the revolution in telecommunications technology has extended the actual impact of the FISA regime far beyond what Congress could ever have anticipated in 1978. And I don't think that anyone can make the claim that the FISA statute is optimized to deal with or prevent a 9/11 or to deal with a lethal enemy who likely already had combatants inside the United States. . . .

So now, we come to one additional piece of NSA authorities. These are the activities whose existence the president confirmed several weeks ago. That authorization was based on an intelligence community assessment of a serious and continuing threat to the homeland. The lawfulness of the actual authorization was reviewed by lawyers at the Department of Justice and the White House and was approved by the attorney general. . . .

. . . In other words, our lawyers weren't careful out of fear; they were careful out of a heartfelt, principled view that NSA operations had to be consistent with bedrock legal protections.

You know, the 9/11 commission criticized our ability to link things happening in the United States with things that were happening elsewhere. In that light, there are no communications more important to the safety of this country than those affiliated with al Qaeda with one end in the United States. The president's authorization allows us to track this kind of call more comprehensively and more efficiently. The trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant, but the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve al Qaeda or one of its affiliates.[/i]

The purpose of all this is not to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and prevent attacks. The intelligence community has neither the time, the resources nor the legal authority to read communications that aren't likely to protect us, and NSA has no interest in doing so. These are communications that we have reason to believe are al Qaeda communications, a judgment made by American intelligence professionals, not folks like me or political appointees, a judgment made by the American intelligence professionals most trained to understand al Qaeda tactics, al Qaeda communications and al Qaeda aims.

Their work is actively overseen by the most intense oversight regime in the history of the National Security Agency. The agency's conduct of this program is thoroughly reviewed by the NSA's general counsel and inspector general. The program has also been reviewed by the Department of Justice for compliance with the president's authorization. Oversight also includes an aggressive training program to ensure that all activities are consistent with the letter and the intent of the authorization and with the preservation of civil liberties. . . .

This is targeted and focused. This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States. This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al Qaeda. . . .

This targeted and focused program authorized by the president with respect to monitoring and intercepting the electronic communications of United States persons whom the government believes to be associated with al Qaeda is subject to FISA court approval in accordance with the requirements of FISA.

If what Gen. Michael Hayden is saying is true, FISA court approval would be immediately forthcoming. The President did not have authority under our constitutional framework to issue an executive order to establish his own electronic surveillance program that contradicts and circumvents the program that Congress established by statute. Hayden acknowledges that the government makes extensive use of FISA and the results are outstanding. FISA works. But, if it doesn't work quickly enough or efficiently enough due to advances in telecommunications technology, even with the provision that allows the government to commence surveillance 72 hours in advance of obtaining court approval, then why didn't the president recommend amending FISA to Congress?

The president has had more than FOUR YEARS since September 11, 2001, to work with CONGRESS to fine tune and amend the law to meet the government's alleged needs in the face of the revolution in telecommunications technology that Congress didn't anticipate in 1978 (the year FISA was enacted). What stopped the president since 2001 from bringing the alleged deficiencies of FISA to the attention of Congress and recommending amendments? Absolutely nothing. The president intentionally ignored the legislative process and unilaterally and autocratically decided to make rules for government that differed from the rules already established by statutory law.

Again, relevant excerpts from Youngstown:

The President's order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress - it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President.

In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.

The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice.

Absence of authority in the President to deal with a crisis does not imply want of power in the Government. Conversely the fact that power exists in the Government does not vest it in the President. The need for new legislation does not enact it. Nor does it repeal or amend existing law.

A scheme of government like ours no doubt at times feels the lack of power to act with complete, all-embracing, swiftly moving authority. No doubt a government with distributed authority, subject to be challenged in the courts of law, at least long enough to consider and adjudicate the challenge, labors under restrictions from which other governments are free. It has not been our tradition to envy such governments. In any event our government was designed to have such restrictions. The price was deemed not too high in view of the safeguards which these restrictions afford. I know no more impressive words on this subject than those of Mr. Justice Brandeis:

"The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was, not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy." Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 240 , 293.

If we sanctioned the present exercise of power by the President, we would be expanding Article II of the Constitution and rewriting it to suit the political conveniences of the present emergency . . . our history and tradition rebel at the thought that the grant of military power carries with it authority over civilian affairs . . . the power to execute the laws starts and ends with the laws Congress has enacted.

[The president's] command power is not such an absolute as might be implied from that office in a militaristic system but is subject to limitations consistent with a constitutional Republic whose law and policy-making branch is a representative Congress.

The appeal, however, that we declare the existence of inherent powers ex necessitate to meet an emergency asks us to do what many think would be wise, although it is something the forefathers omitted. They knew what emergencies were, knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew, too, how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation. We may also suspect that they suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies. Aside from suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in time of rebellion or invasion, when the public safety may require it, they made no express provision for exercise of extraordinary authority because of a crisis. I do not think we rightfully may so amend their work, and, if we could, I am not convinced it would be wise to do so, although many modern nations have forthrightly recognized that war and economic crises may upset the normal balance between liberty and authority. Their experience with emergency powers may not be irrelevant to the argument here that we should say that the Executive, of his own volition, can invest himself with undefined emergency powers.

This contemporary foreign experience may be inconclusive as to the wisdom of lodging emergency powers somewhere in a modern government. But it suggests that emergency powers are consistent with free government only when their control is lodged elsewhere than in the Executive who exercises them. That is the safeguard that would be nullified by our adoption of the "inherent powers" formula. Nothing in my experience convinces me that such risks are warranted by any real necessity, although such powers would, of course, be an executive convenience.

In the practical working of our Government we already have evolved a technique within the framework of the Constitution by which normal executive powers may be considerably expanded to meet an emergency. Congress may and has granted extraordinary authorities which lie dormant in normal times but may be called into play by the Executive in war or upon proclamation of a national emergency. . . .

In view of the ease, expedition and safety with which Congress can grant and has granted large emergency powers, certainly ample to embrace this crisis, I am quite unimpressed with the argument that we should affirm possession of them without statute. Such power either has no beginning or it has no end. If it exists, it need submit to no legal restraint. I am not alarmed that it would plunge us straightway into dictatorship, but it is at least a step in that wrong direction.

. . . The essence of our free Government is "leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the law" - to be governed by those impersonal forces which we call law. Our Government is fashioned to fulfill this concept so far as humanly possible. The Executive, except for recommendation and veto, has no legislative power. The executive action we have here originates in the individual will of the President and represents an exercise of authority without law. No one, perhaps not even the President, knows the limits of the power he may seek to exert in this instance and the parties affected cannot learn the limit of their rights. We do not know today what powers over labor or property would be claimed to flow from Government possession if we should legalize it, what rights to compensation would be claimed or recognized, or on what contingency it would end. With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

This is a serious defense?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Quote:
"Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics," Bush said

So he feels that in this time of war without end he can use whatever force necessary because congress didn't tell him he couldn't?

He's such a frickin' liar--and even when he's caught in his lies--and even when his illegal conduct is exposed--he believes the people are so dumb that they will accept his propaganda that everything he did was right, and moral, and for our own good. And, people are dumb.

He tells people that a recent Supreme Court decision backs his contention that the AUMF authorizes his domestic spying program? (Oh yes--we got to "rename" the illegal domestic spying program to make it sound better and more palatable for the dumb people to swallow: "the terrorist surveillance" program. There now, dumb people, that sounds better, right? Pat the Bushspinmeister on the back for circumventing the law and our constitution and saving you from those bad people.) The Supreme Court said the president was authorized to detain enemy combatants that are captured on the battlefield to prevent them from returning to the battlefield. That's a normal incident of war--capturing the enemy. But how does that court ruling support or condone Bush's domestic spying program? It doesn't. Warrantless spying on our own people in our own country is not a normal incident of war----it goes against everything we believe in.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

The fact that you continue to bring up this "recess appointments" matter leads me to conclude you are a lost cause.

I see you're playing your diversionary games again.

You are the one who brought in the irrelevant subject of "recess appointments" into this discussion and repeatedly demanded that I respond. When I respond, you accuse me of "continuing to bring up" the very thing that you demanded that I address. Are you having fun with your silly game?

You might as well place a disclaimer at the end of your posts:

"If you disagree with my statements, I will consider all your responses to be a lost cause."

In that respect, you would save us all a lot of time responding.

I have supported everything I have said. On the other hand, you claim that FISA is unconstitutional to the extent that it encroaches on the president's inherent powers, but it is otherwise constitutional.

The fact that you refuse to support your argument by addressing the actual provisions and applications of FISA in order to show us which provisions/applications are unconstitutional, and to show us whether those provisions/applications can be severed without offending congressional intent, demonstrates that you are unable to do so.

The rest of your post is simply YOU playing your ranting, irrelevant, diversionary game. Continuing to cover the same ground over and over and over again "is neither something I want nor intend to do."

0 Replies

Hayden failed to mention that much of the program was in place before 9/11. He failed to mention that several of the hijackers were already being tracked before 9/11. The canard that we somehow would have been saved by a better spying program is ludicrous.

I also find it Ironic that the president is conducting a PR campaign about spying on Americans! Can you not see how Orwellian this all has become?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

"I also find it Ironic that the president is conducting a PR campaign about spying on Americans! Can you not see how Orwellian this all has become? "

I can see why you would as you misrepresent the situation by painting with a very broad brush by saying he is spying on AMERICANS, as if everyone of us is being spied on.

What I fail to understand is why you think we should not intercept communications coming "the enemy" into the US or vice versa?

0 Replies

Because woiyo, it all boils down to this: we only have the government's word that we are just spying on "suspected terrorist." Without oversight, the government could be, brace yourself, lying.

Anyone could be a suspected terrorist. If you don't have show some kind of probable cause, none of us are safe from spying from our government.

Bush makes out like the only people they spy on who people who they knew were talking to AQ members and that is simply not the case. If that were the case, then surely it would be a simple matter to get a warrant or even go through that 72 hour thing. On this thread there have been links shown on widespread the spying really is.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

"I also find it Ironic that the president is conducting a PR campaign about spying on Americans! Can you not see how Orwellian this all has become? "

I can see why you would as you misrepresent the situation by painting with a very broad brush by saying he is spying on AMERICANS, as if everyone of us is being spied on.

What I fail to understand is why you think we should not intercept communications coming "the enemy" into the US or vice versa?

When one person loses her freedom, we all lose our freedom. The American sheeple need to wake up. Thank God that Libertarians on the right are joining the progressives in this.

Now, they want to track our Google searches. Of course, bot all Americans use Google, so why worry?

Gosh, you cowards make me sick. The "terrorists" have already won.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I also find it Ironic that the president is conducting a PR campaign about spying on Americans! Can you not see how Orwellian this all has become?

Cycloptichorn

I was going to post the exact same thought. The scary part is that the American sheeple don't see it.

EDIT: the above post should read "not all Americans use Google..."

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

woiyo wrote:
"I also find it Ironic that the president is conducting a PR campaign about spying on Americans! Can you not see how Orwellian this all has become? "

I can see why you would as you misrepresent the situation by painting with a very broad brush by saying he is spying on AMERICANS, as if everyone of us is being spied on.

What I fail to understand is why you think we should not intercept communications coming "the enemy" into the US or vice versa?

When one person loses her freedom, we all lose our freedom. The American sheeple need to wake up. Thank God that Libertarians on the right are joining the progressives in this.

Now, they want to track our Google searches. Of course, bot all Americans use Google, so why worry?

Gosh, you cowards make me sick. The "terrorists" have already won.

So,using your argument,when one person is sentenced to prison,we all get sentenced to prison?

0 Replies

0 Replies

Well, according to my logic when one convict is executed we all become murderers.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Well, according to my logic when one convict is executed we all become murderers.

Then your logic is flawed.
If a convicted killer is sentenced to death,goes thru all possible appeals,and the sentence is upheld,that isnt murder.

But,if you want to believe that it is,then I will gladly wear the title of murderer.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

woiyo wrote:
"I also find it Ironic that the president is conducting a PR campaign about spying on Americans! Can you not see how Orwellian this all has become? "

I can see why you would as you misrepresent the situation by painting with a very broad brush by saying he is spying on AMERICANS, as if everyone of us is being spied on.

What I fail to understand is why you think we should not intercept communications coming "the enemy" into the US or vice versa?

When one person loses her freedom, we all lose our freedom. The American sheeple need to wake up. Thank God that Libertarians on the right are joining the progressives in this.

Now, they want to track our Google searches. Of course, bot all Americans use Google, so why worry?

Gosh, you cowards make me sick. The "terrorists" have already won.

Your childish little sayings work wonderfully on NPR. However reality is a differnt thing. Your the same nitwit who thinks GW caused Ford to announce their layoffs.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

revel wrote:
This is a serious defense?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Quote:
"Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics," Bush said

So he feels that in this time of war without end he can use whatever force necessary because congress didn't tell him he couldn't?

He's such a frickin' liar--and even when he's caught in his lies--and even when his illegal conduct is exposed--he believes the people are so dumb that they will accept his propaganda that everything he did was right, and moral, and for our own good. And, people are dumb.

He tells people that a recent Supreme Court decision backs his contention that the AUMF authorizes his domestic spying program? (Oh yes--we got to "rename" the illegal domestic spying program to make it sound better and more palatable for the dumb people to swallow: "the terrorist surveillance" program. There now, dumb people, that sounds better, right? Pat the Bushspinmeister on the back for circumventing the law and our constitution and saving you from those bad people.) The Supreme Court said the president was authorized to detain enemy combatants that are captured on the battlefield to prevent them from returning to the battlefield. That's a normal incident of war--capturing the enemy. But how does that court ruling support or condone Bush's domestic spying program? It doesn't. Warrantless spying on our own people in our own country is not a normal incident of war----it goes against everything we believe in.

"Terrorist surveillance program" is more accurate than "domestic spying program." It doesn't sound as sinister, or sound as negatively towards Bush, so we all understand why you dislike the term.

But please keep it up. You keep showing the American people why they are correct in believing the country is more secure with the current party in charge.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
The fact that you continue to bring up this "recess appointments" matter leads me to conclude you are a lost cause.

I see you're playing your diversionary games again.

You are the one who brought in the irrelevant subject of "recess appointments" into this discussion and repeatedly demanded that I respond. When I respond, you accuse me of "continuing to bring up" the very thing that you demanded that I address. Are you having fun with your silly game?

I have never ... I repeat, NEVER repeatedly asked you to respond to anything regarding "recess appointments," which is but one of many express powers held by the Executive.

But what I have repeatedly asked you to do, and what you have repeatedly failed or refused to do, is answer the following question:

Where in the Constitution do you find any authority for the President to invoke express powers as a means to circumvent duly enacted laws that Congress has the legislative power to enact?

Since I have asked that question of you about 4 times now, I'm starting to think you don't want to answer it.

DL wrote:

The fact that you refuse to support your argument by addressing the actual provisions and applications of FISA in order to show us which provisions/applications are unconstitutional, and to show us whether those provisions/applications can be severed without offending congressional intent, demonstrates that you are unable to do so.

No, it shows you I lack motivation to do so. But let's assume I was inclined to take the time to do that, what would we find? You think I would be unable to sever any provisions without offending congressional intent over the remaining provisions, despite a presumption in favor of severability. Fine ... let's assume you are right (and I could care less whether you are or aren't): In that case, the entire Act is unconstitutional. Now, let's assume you are incorrect: In that case only a portion of the Act is unconstitutional. In either case, as I argue it, the portion that attempts to impede the President's inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for purposes of foreign intelligence during a time of war should be found unconstitutional. Whether the entire act is found unconstitutional is of secondary concern to me, and does not affect the primary issue.

0 Replies

[qoute]the portion that attempts to impede the President's inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for purposes of foreign intelligence during a time of war should be found unconstitutional..[/quote]

That is so preposterous, it's laughable.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

[qoute]the portion that attempts to impede the President's inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for purposes of foreign intelligence during a time of war should be found unconstitutional..

That is so preposterous, it's laughable.[/quote]

You want something laughable.....

Explain to us WHY!

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
woiyo wrote:
"I also find it Ironic that the president is conducting a PR campaign about spying on Americans! Can you not see how Orwellian this all has become? "

I can see why you would as you misrepresent the situation by painting with a very broad brush by saying he is spying on AMERICANS, as if everyone of us is being spied on.

What I fail to understand is why you think we should not intercept communications coming "the enemy" into the US or vice versa?

When one person loses her freedom, we all lose our freedom. The American sheeple need to wake up. Thank God that Libertarians on the right are joining the progressives in this.

Now, they want to track our Google searches. Of course, bot all Americans use Google, so why worry?

Gosh, you cowards make me sick. The "terrorists" have already won.

Your childish little sayings work wonderfully on NPR. However [sic]reality is a differnt [sic]thing. Your [sic] the same nitwit who thinks GW caused Ford to announce[sic] their layoffs.

I never said GW "caused" the Ford layoff. Now, who is the nitwit who can't read? And I certainly never said that GW caused Ford to "announce" their layoffs. Readers can judge who ther illiterate nitwit is. LOL

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
[qoute]the portion that attempts to impede the President's inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for purposes of foreign intelligence during a time of war should be found unconstitutional..

That is so preposterous, it's laughable.

You want something laughable.....

Explain to us WHY![/quote]

Read the Constitution. Oh wait, I asked you to read it. EDIT: Have someone read it to you. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Quote:

No, it shows you I lack motivation to do so. But let's assume I was inclined to take the time to do that, what would we find? You think I would be unable to sever any provisions without offending congressional intent over the remaining provisions, despite a presumption in favor of severability. Fine ... let's assume you are right (and I could care less whether you are or aren't): In that case, the entire Act is unconstitutional. Now, let's assume you are incorrect: In that case only a portion of the Act is unconstitutional. In either case, as I argue it, the portion that attempts to impede the President's inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for purposes of foreign intelligence during a time of war should be found unconstitutional. Whether the entire act is found unconstitutional is of secondary concern to me, and does not affect the primary issue.

Should be found unconstitutional isn't the same thing as is unconstitutional, is it?

As far as I can tell the law is not currently considered to be unconstitutional in any way. If the law was to be changed, fine, but you cannot simply ignore it as Bush has chosen to do.

Woiyo,

The common man has as much to fear from his own government as he does from foriegn governments or terrorists. Oppression of the goverment towards its own citizens was one of the primary concerns of our founding fathers, was it not? Therefore, it is extremely important to balance the needs of foriegn surviellance versus the needs of privacy and protection from the government... and the best way to do that is to have some oversight.

That's what really gets me about you guys in this argument; all that is asked for is some oversight. It has been shown that time isn't really a factor, that nothing is done in such a rush that the decision cannot be reviewed; but they do not review the decision, many suspect, because there has been illegal spying going on that has nothing to do with foreign terrorism.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know