aps said:Caine, I am so sick of the Bushies invoking 9-11. Bush, Cheney, and Condi have all stated that this kind of wiretapping was necessary or thousands of lives could be lost. Shut up!
Did anyone notice that when Bush talked about Osama bin Laden in yesterday's news conference, he initially called him Saddam. Oh brother. :roll:
Deegan said:Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802, "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order," reads: "[T]he President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year," provided a series of conditions are met. Surveillance must be directed only at agents of foreign powers; there can be no likely surveillance of a "U.S. person", and there must be strict congressional oversight in the intelligence committees.
This is loophole, but unfortunately, he apparently did this for longer then a year, so he might be in trouble. I would assume they have other talking point, I am interested in hearing all about this, and why they would risk the backlash if they were not clear about the legality?
I just can't believe with all the brilliant people around Bush, how they could break rules, and not have justification?:doh
Caine said:although what we do know is that the wiretaping in this case was not warranted.
Because I watched CSPAN2 today and the senate addressed it.oldreliable67 said:And you know this how?
Lets see what aps took from the whitehouse website.....Look, swap places with the Pres for a moment. You've got a secret NSA suveillance program going. It is new technology and is being very valuable and is producing good intel. Now you're making a public appearance. What is the last thing you want to disclose at this public appearance? Do you want to tell al Qaeda about your secret NSA survellance program? Don't be silly. Of course not.
What is safe to talk about? The standard FISA procedures for wiretaps. You can reiterate that safely all day long if need be, and not give anything away.
Which would you rather do?
Now, I am in no way talking about the leak to the press, which I think you are getting confused with my point here.aps said:Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
Caine said:Now are my statements clear?
Thus he KNEW that a wiretap requires a court order. But now he states that he was well within his constitutional authority to do it WITHOUT a court order. Which one is it Mr. President? Did you lie in the above statement? Or are you lying now?
So, he DID lie....oldreliable67 said:Moreover, he didn't lie: the wiretaps under FISA did/do require court orders.
The records and files of the cases are sealed and may not be revealed even to persons whose prosecutions are based on evidence obtained under FISA warrants, except to a limited degree set by district judges' rulings on motions to suppress. 50 U.S.C. §1803(c). There is no provision for the return of each executed warrant to the FISC, much less with an inventory of items taken, nor for certification that the surveillance was conducted according to the warrant and its "minimization" requirements.
tryreading said:If you won't post proof of your statements, you should only talk about what you're sure of.
The phone tapping can still be done, but properly, with a court order.
This provides a check/balance situation. Let's don't trust politicians to listen in because they think they have the power to, without regulation. It can still be done, but again, through proper channels.
Two Things to Say on This:aquapub said:Picture this:
Marines in Iraq just acquired phone records from the home of a terrorist in Iraq. The records show 12 very recent, two-minute calls, placed closely together and to a number that traces back to a young, Arab, Muslim man in Brooklyn who has been in America for 6 months on a student Visa. He lives alone and has been working at a laundromat, yet he has an account with $40,000 in it that receives monthly deposits of $5,000 from a bank account in Saudi Arabia linked to the terror cell in Iraq.
This guy is your stereotypical terrorist.
If the people who are crucifying President Bush for authorizing monitoring of international calls to terror suspects in America, and who are opposing the Patriot Act have their way, the federal government could not listen to the phone calls coming from Iraq to this highly suspicious immigrant, and the courts would dramatically slow their investigative efforts down.
As already stated, Democrats in no way wish to abolish the Patriot Act, do some research on the views of the people you are acusing before blindly following the words of Republicans and Presidnet Bush who would have you believe this false accusation.When deciding whether or not to support the renewal of the Patriot Act or not, it is important to realize a few things.
If you side against it, with the McCain anti-torture amendment or not, you are also siding against roving wire taps (removing these from the game would put counterterrorism efforts back into the Stone Age); you are also siding against the removal of judicial red tape that, since the Patriot Act was first enacted, has kept the FBI from having to gather the same level of compelling evidence against terror suspects as common criminals to justify searches and detainments-In other words, the Patriot Act keeps us from having to get a traditional search warrant for someone who may be headed to a football stadium to detonate a bomb; you would also have to side against middle America in its entirety to vote against the Patriot Act.
Do FOREIGN terror suspects REALLY have any Constitutional rights? Especially a Constitutional right to privacy which can’t even be found mentioned for AMERICANS anywhere in the Constitution?
Democrats are just dead wrong on this, and thank God middle America doesn't go in for all this "Stalin all over again" hysteria being used to discourage us from defending ourselves with common sense security measures.
hipsterdufus said:What "experts" did you listen to?
Of course the President has the right to ask for wiretaps, but, as outlined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), he needs to have judicial approval. He can, in emergency circumstances, ask for judicial approval after the fact. Bush did neither.
Below is a link to the "Use of Force Resolution, and I see no clause that legally allows Bush to bypass FISA.
My man Russ Feingold is on the case:
Stinger said:>>Democrats are just dead wrong on this, and thank God middle America doesn't go in for all this "Stalin all over again" hysteria being used to discourage us from defending ourselves with common sense security measures.<<
They are no only dead-wrong they are lying through their teeth and misrepresenting the law and purposely misleading the people. If this is not the final straw for the dangerous games they have been playing with our safety I don't know what will be.
oldreliable67 said:Yep. And I think you're reasoning is flawed. When you say...
...I think you're failing to recognize the difference between public rhetoric and private action, between speaking for public consumption versus revealing secret programs. The NSA surveillance program is/was secret. It was covert. You would have preferred the President to reveal a secret activity? (Then you must not have objected to the outing of Valerie Plame?) Moreover, he didn't lie: the wiretaps under FISA did/do require court orders.
M14 Shooter said:Hmm.
Clinton, February 9, 1995:
"The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order to acquire foreign intelligence information "
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
Carter, May 23, 1979
"the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order"
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
I ask again:
Where was the uproar from the liberal democrats?
if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.[/B]
M14 Shooter said:Whats your point? As long the AG does what he's supposed to do, its OK to search w/o a warrant?
How is that differen than now?
aps said:Does a person who is under surveillance know that he/she is under surveillance?
In proposing FISA to Congress in 1978, the Carter administration specifically stated that passage of the new law would not necessarily preclude the president from "using his powers granted under the Constitution to carry out foreign policy and intelligence activities," according to Griffin B. Bell, the attorney general when the law was drafted and enacted. There was a "tacit agreement that FISA was not intended to displace the president's authority," Mr. Bell told [the author of the article] earlier this week.
Citing that authority, the Bush administration disclosed the NSA intercept program at its inception to congressional leaders, the FISA court and NSA's inspector general. In addition, Mr. Bush set up a Justice Department review process, which retroactively examines the intercepts to ensure that the program is being carried out according to the terms of the president's authorization.
oldreliable67 said:Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. For sure, now, thanks to the NYT, any bad actors in the US that are communicating with their counterparts overseas know that their communications are potentially compromised.
aps said:How is his statement any different than the NYT's disclosure?
aquapub said:When a terrorist in Iraq is making phone calls to a young Arab, Muslim immigrant living beyond his means in Brooklyn, on a student visa, WE’D BETTER be able to listen to those phone calls.
The fact that Democrats oppose common sense national security moves like this and the Patriot Act is how liberals get branded as traitors. When those who know what is going on in the war against terror look at the political spectrum, they see Republicans giving them what they need to fight and win, and they see Democrats systematically stepping in the way of every single thing they do to protect this country. When they try to reconcile why Democrats always seem to want us to fight with both hands tied behind our backs, all they get is preaching about civil liberties. Isn’t the right to not be murdered greater than the right to privacy? At least the right to live can even be found in the Constitution. Privacy is a fiction. The “civil liberties for foreign terrorists” arguments just don’t sell.
So why DO liberals step in and defend the Taliban, Saddam, Castro, and every American enemy since Ho Chi Minh? Calling liberals treasonous is not a tactic. It is a common belief among patriotic citizens in this country.
And Caine, I am not basing my view of Democrats on the president's words at all as you assume. I am basing them on the words of Democrats I have listened to ever since the Patriot Act was first mentioned. Many, many Democrats are on the record calling the legislation a travesty of justice and other hysterical nonsense. Like Kerry in 2004, they cannot reinvent their way out of their own words.
And there is already all the judicial oversight their needs to be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?