1
   

The President Bush Wrongdoing Thread

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2006 10:02 am
Noone's really interested in anyone's opinion in this matter - mine or yours. The big difference is that I can point to FISA and show you a law barring what the president is doing, and you can't point to anything allowing it.

That isn't politics, it's called 'having a nation of laws.' And having that mean something.

If you don't have anything else to say on the matter, I'll conclude that you don't have any evidence, can't provide a structured argument, move on to another Wrongdoing by Bush.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2006 10:08 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Noone's really interested in anyone's opinion in this matter - mine or yours. The big difference is that I can point to FISA and show you a law barring what the president is doing, and you can't point to anything allowing it.

That isn't politics, it's called 'having a nation of laws.' And having that mean something.

If you don't have anything else to say on the matter, I'll conclude that you don't have any evidence, can't provide a structured argument, move on to another Wrongdoing by Bush.

Cycloptichorn


Perhaps you should reread these?

Quote:
Setting The Record Straight On The Use Of The FISA Court.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Says The Administration Should Be Using The FISA Court. FOX NEWS' CHRIS WALLACE: "Senator, let's talk about the NSA wiretap program, though. We all saw the Osama bin Laden tape that came out late this week. If someone from Al Qaida in Pakistan is calling someone here in the U.S., don't you want to know what they're talking about?" SEN. DURBIN: "Absolutely. And that's why we created the FISA court." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 1/22/06)

But The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program Provides The Speed And Agility Needed To Prosecute The War On Terror.

* Former Clinton Administration Associate Attorney General Writes That "FISA Does Not Anticipate A Post-Sept. 11 Situation." "The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance 'authorized by statute' is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to 'use all necessary and appropriate force' to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action. But even if the NSA activity is 'electronic surveillance' and the Sept. 11 resolution is not 'statutory authorization' within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, 'encroach upon the president's constitutional power.' FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment." (John Schmidt, Op-Ed, "President Had Legal Authority To OK Taps," The Chicago Tribune, 12/21/05)

* The Government Continues To Use The FISA Court But Must Preserve The Flexibility To Act With Speed In All Circumstances. AG GONZALES: "Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. ... The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology ... since then." (The White House, Press Briefing, 12/19/05)

* Because Of Its Speed, The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program Has Provided Crucial Information Otherwise Not Available. GENERAL HAYDEN: "I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available." QUESTION: "Through the court? Because of the speed that you got it?" GENERAL HAYDEN: "Yes, because of the speed, because of the procedures, because of the processes and requirements set up in the FISA process, I can say unequivocally that we have used this program in lieu of that and this program has been successful." (The White House, Press Briefing, 12/19/05)


I read your rebuttal of these points, none offered counter evidence, but your opinion of them. Again, I will respect the opinions of the AG of the US over a poster on an internet forum.

Perhaps more opinion will help?

From your last link:

Quote:
Woolsey, President Bill Clinton's first CIA director, defended the eavesdropping program.

"The one-spy-at-a-time surveillance systems of the Cold War -- including FISA, through courts -- are not designed to deal with fast-moving battlefield electronic mapping" of today's terrorism fight, he said. "An al-Qaeda or a Hezbollah computer might be captured which contains a large number of e-mail addresses and phone numbers which would have to be checked out very promptly," he said, and the FISA warrant process is too cumbersome to allow it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2006 10:13 am
Heh, none of theose points actually say that the program is legal. They just provide opinions as to the usefulness of the program. My argument is that the program is illegal.

Without a SC or legistlation overturing FISA, what the president is doing is illegal. This is the main point of the argument for which you have no rebuttal whatsoever.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2006 10:17 am
Actually, it is also unethical, immoral, and unAmerican as well.

Bush took an oath when he became president. He put his hand on the bible and swore to protect the constitution of the US. Breaking that constitution, and the Amendments therein, is a violation of that oath. Bush's primary duty isn't to protect the country, it is to protect the Constitution. Therefore, he is acting in an unAmerican way.

And he did it in the sneakiest of possible fashions. He could have changed the laws, but he didn't; he decided to try to subvert the law. That is why he is currently in trouble. Trying to subvert American law is unethical and immoral.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2006 10:18 am
If you are correct McG, would you or would you not agree that this is an unchecked power, and if so, that it has the potential to be abused by those with access to the information derived from the program?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2006 10:19 am
Quote:
The document in question is also somewhat suspect, as we know for a fact that the domestic spying process began before 9/11 even happened. So to say that Bush authorized it in wake of 9/11 is a flat-out lie, yet it is the first line of the document in question (legal authorities...)


This has stuck in my head since reading it.

Where did you get this information from? I have seen no evidence of this and hadn't even heard of it before. Is this the state of "evidence" that you bring?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2006 10:23 am
One minute with Google would have found the answer for you, but that's too much to ask, hmm?

Quote:
Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say

By Andrew Harris

June 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.

The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.

``The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,'' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. ``This undermines that assertion.''

The lawsuit is related to an alleged NSA program to record and store data on calls placed by subscribers. More than 30 suits have been filed over claims that the carriers, the three biggest U.S. telephone companies, violated the privacy rights of their customers by cooperating with the NSA in an effort to track alleged terrorists.

``The U.S. Department of Justice has stated that AT&T may neither confirm nor deny AT&T's participation in the alleged NSA program because doing so would cause `exceptionally grave harm to national security' and would violate both civil and criminal statutes,'' AT&T spokesman Dave Pacholczyk said in an e-mail.

U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller and NSA spokesman Don Weber declined to comment.

Pioneer Groundbreaker

The NSA initiative, code-named ``Pioneer Groundbreaker,'' asked AT&T unit AT&T Solutions to build exclusively for NSA use a network operations center which duplicated AT&T's Bedminster, New Jersey facility, the court papers claimed. That plan was abandoned in favor of the NSA acquiring the monitoring technology itself, plaintiffs' lawyers Bruce Afran said.

The NSA says on its Web site that in June 2000, the agency was seeking bids for a project to ``modernize and improve its information technology infrastructure.'' The plan, which included the privatization of its ``non-mission related'' systems support, was said to be part of Project Groundbreaker.

Mayer said the Pioneer project is ``a different component'' of that initiative.

Mayer and Afran said an unnamed former employee of the AT&T unit provided them with evidence that the NSA approached the carrier with the proposed plan. Afran said he has seen the worker's log book and independently confirmed the source's participation in the project. He declined to identify the employee.

Stop Suit

On June 9, U.S. District Court Judge P. Kevin Castel in New York stopped the lawsuit from moving forward while the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Washington rules on a U.S. request to assign all related telephone records lawsuits to a single judge.

Robert Varettoni, a spokesman for Verizon, said he was unaware of the allegations against AT&T and declined to comment.

Earlier this week, he issued a statement on behalf of the company that Verizon had not been asked by the NSA to provide customer phone records from either its hard-wired or wireless networks. Verizon also said that it couldn't confirm or deny ``whether it has any relationship to the classified NSA program.''

Mayer's lawsuit was filed following a May 11 USA Today report that the U.S. government was using the NSA to monitor domestic telephone calls. Earlier today, USA Today said it couldn't confirm its contention that BellSouth or Verizon had contracts with the NSA to provide a database of domestic customer phone call records.

Jeff Battcher, a spokesman for Atlanta-based BellSouth, said that vindicated the company.

``We never turned over any records to the NSA,'' he said in a telephone interview. ``We've been clear all along that they've never contacted us. Nobody in our company has ever had any contact with the NSA.''

The case is McMurray v. Verizon Communications Inc., 06cv3650, in the Southern District of New York.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2006 10:36 am
Wow. I have never actually witnessed bias related blindness til now.

That you can combine these two events and come up with "we know for a fact that the domestic spying process began before 9/11 even happened." amazes me.

Perhaps you should read this.

NSA Call Data Channel (CDC) Monitoring

On 11 May 2006 USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had secretly collected the phone call records of millions of Americans, using data from three of the nation's biggest phone service providers. Thee National Security Agency used information provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, which were reported to be working under contract with the NSA. The three companies provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers in the US.

The newspaper said it learned from sources familiar with the program that the NSA does not listen or record actual phone conversations, but uses the data to analyze the calling patterns of ordinary Americans in order to detect possible terrorist activities. Under Section 222 of the U.S. Communications Act passed in 1934 and amended in 1996, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits.

The law around wiretaps has grown up around a legal distinction between Content and Identifying Information with a legal history based in the postal system. The outside of a letter identifies the recipient, the sender, the place where the letter was posted and the time. Obtaining this "Identification" information requires a lower legal standard than the "Content" of the mail - the letter inside the envelope.

In March 2004 the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) and the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) jointly published the TIA Standard/ATIS Committee T1 Trial Use Standard, "Lawfully Authorized Electronic Surveillance" J-STD-025-B. This standard defines the interfaces between a telecommunications service provider (TSP) and a law enforcement agency (LEA) to assist the LEA in conducting lawfully authorized electronic surveillance. The purpose of this standard is to facilitate a TSP's compliance with the assistance capability requirements defined in Section 103 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).

J-STD-025-B defines services and features to support Lawfully Authorized Electronic Surveillance (LAES) and the interfaces to deliver intercepted communications and communication-identifying information to an LEA when authorized. The document also defines a protocol for delivering specific information elements to LEAs. Compliance with this standard satisfies the "safe harbor" provisions of Section 107 of CALEA and helps ensure efficient and industry-wide implementation of the assistance capability requirements.

J-STD-025-B focuses on refining the CALEA packet-mode communications requirements for the interface to the collection equipment of LEAs. The requirements in this standard pertain to several technologies. The details of the solution for the cdma2000®* packet data system are included in the standard, as are normative references for Voice over Packet (VoP) for Wireline Telecommunications Networks and Universal Mobile Telecommunications System/General Packet Radio Service (UMTS/GPRS), technologies focused on by ATIS' Technical Committees T1S1 and T1P1 respectively.

J-STD-025-B is a TIA Standard/ATIS Committee T1 Trial Use Standard, which was developed and approved by TIA and ATIS' Committee T1 for trial use, comment and criticism, and published in December 2003. At its March 2004 meeting, the TIA Engineering Committee TR-45 approved a ballot to determine whether the Trial Use Standard should be made into an American National Standard. In like fashion, ATIS' Technical Committees T1P1 and T1S1 issued similar letter ballots.

Content is defined in 18 USC 2510 (8) to be "when used with respect to any wire or electronic communications, includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication." Call-identifying information is defined in CALEA Section 102 (2) to be "dialing or signaling information that identifies the origin, direction, destination, or termination of each communication generated or received by a subscriber by means of any equipment, facility, or service of a [TSP]."

A TSP is required to provide access to the communications and call-identifying information for particular intercept subjects. The CDCs and CCCs use separate logical channels. The Call Content Channels and Call Data Channels [CDC and CCC(s)] may be transported to an LEA over separate or common physical facilities. The CDCs may be multiplexed onto one or more physical facilities.

The Call Content Channel (CCC) is the link between the surveillance switch and the law enforcement agency that carries the call content. The CCC may be a switched connection or a dedicated path through the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), e.g., on a private line. The Call Data Channel (CDC) is the interface between the surveillance switch and the law enforcement agency that carries the call set-up data. The CDC may be a switched connection or dedicated path through the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) or may be separate from the PSTN, e.g., via a private line or a packet switched network.

A call content channel (CCC) delivers the content of voice conversations and voice-band data to the monitoring center over digital trunks. Two circuits are required for the CCC, one for the subject's voice content and the other for the associates' voice content. A call data channel (CDC) carries the call data related to monitored calls (origination information, termination attempt, information answer detection). The CDC is a TCP/IP connection linking the switch serving the subject to the monitoring center. Up to five different monitoring centers can receive the voice content and call data from a single subscriber, allowing that subscriber to be the subject of five simultaneous investigations.

A subject's call content is generally transported to the LEA over one or more Call Content Channels [CCCs]. The actual number of CCCs will vary with each electronic surveillance according to the number of CCCs ordered by the LEA. Factors influencing this number are the subject's bearer capabilities, the subject's call capabilities, the type of communication being intercepted, the type and capacity of individual CCCs, the number of possible call appearances, and the subject's call-related activities. CCCs shall be provisioned as combined (i.e., carrying both the transmit and receive paths on one channel) or separated (i.e., using independent channels for the transmit and receive paths). Each CCC for an electronic surveillance must be capable of transporting one or more of the subject's intercepted bearer services. For some types of applications used by the subject (e.g., short message service), the call content may be transported over the Call Data Channel [CDC].

Additional CCCs are used (up to the number provisioned for a particular electronic surveillance) when the CCCs currently open are incompatible with the bearer services being intercepted. An example of this situation could be when a subject initiates a voice call, optionally places that call on hold, and initiates a second call using a different bearer service (e.g., fax or data). The type of CCC delivered to an LEA may be influenced by the subject's bearer services, the manner in which the subject's call content is accessed, the preferences of the TSP, and the preferences of the LEA conducting the electronic surveillance. Communications that inherently use separate transmit and receive communications paths require separated CCCs. Other communications inherently combine the transmit and receive paths (or assume that the paths may be combined), so combined CCCs may be appropriate.

Call-identifying information is formatted into discrete messages using a specialized protocol called the Lawfully Authorized Electronic Surveillance Protocol (LAESP). The LAESP messages shall be transported to an LEA over a CDC. As defined in this Standard, a single CDC may support the delivery of LAESP messages for one or more electronic surveillances to a particular LEA collection facility.

_______________________________________________________

Hardly "a fact that the domestic spying process began before 9/11 even happened." It's such a stretch, I doubt Armstrong could make it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2006 11:38 am
You're right, I should of said 'there is evidence suggesting that' instead of 'fact.' I accidentally fell into Bush-Iraq WMD mode, sorry.

You still haven't presented evidence that what Bush is doing is legal. Can you show how what he is doing is not specifically prohibited by FISA?

BTW, I know the difference between identifying calling patterns and listening to the content. Bush is in trouble for spying on the content of calls, not just recording calling patterns.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 02:28:48