• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Independent body to monitor spying program

A

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Lo and behold, conservatives were right. Bush WAS really just conducting surveillance without FISA until more feasible rules were enacted.

Where are all these hysterical conspiracy theorist Democrats bemoaning the loss of fictional privacy rights for foreign terrorists now?

Court to monitor spying program - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com
 
It's about freaking time. This panel should have been created before the first warrantless wiretap. Better late than never I guess...

Would it be presumptuous to suggest that maybe the newly elected Congress had something to do with pushing this through?
 
This makes no sense. If the warrantless wiretapping is critical to national security and is legal as the Bush administration has always contended, then there is no need for this special court. If you need the special court, then the previous wiretapping was illegal. Which is it?
 
The Bush administration moves forward on their agenda and the left complains.

The Bush administration decides to consider all sides and compromise with the democrats and the left still complains.
 
Secret but independent eh? First off, I don't really like that...doesn't seem that they are held under the authority of the Supreme Court. Secondly, I'm not sure I would believe the government when they say stuff like this because they'll never provide any real proof that they are operating with these restrictions. It needs to be more transparent so We the People know what the government is up to in order to allow us to control the government better.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
The Bush administration moves forward on their agenda and the left complains.

The Bush administration decides to consider all sides and compromise with the democrats and the left still complains.
Click to expand...

The left questions why this is being done NOW, particularly when the Bush Adminsitration had asserted that they had the authority to do this all along without the Court's supervision. That is not indicative of complaining.
 
aps said:
The left questions why this is being done NOW, particularly when the Bush Adminsitration had asserted that they had the authority to do this all along without the Court's supervision. That is not indicative of complaining.
Click to expand...
Reaching out, perhaps. An attempt to be non-partisan. Listening to both sides of the aisle. Isn't that what you have wanted?
 
CurrentAffairs said:
The Bush administration moves forward on their agenda and the left complains.

The Bush administration decides to consider all sides and compromise with the democrats and the left still complains.
Click to expand...
I asked what I think is a valid question. That's not complaining. The question remains, if warrantless wiretapping is vital to national security interests and any delay in obtaining a wiretap threatens national security, then what is the need for an independent court that gives out warrants, particularly when it's been argued the entire time that this program was legal? Remember, these are national security issues. Why risk the delay to change something that is already legal?
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Reaching out, perhaps. An attempt to be non-partisan. Listening to both sides of the aisle. Isn't that what you have wanted?
Click to expand...
Since when did "reaching out" take precedence over national security?
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Excellent point. Hopefully that is not the case.
Click to expand...
But don't you see that by making this move Bush either admits that his original position was illegal and that warrants are actually needed, or he says that he is bowing to political pressure and willing to compromise national security (since it has always been his contention that getting the warrant would take too much time and threaten security)? By making this move, Bush has put himself in a no win situation.
 
It is a complete win-win situation. It says that Bush can rethink and adapt on issues....just as the left has accused him of never doing and just as the left has always wished he would do. No one is saying that this means his original position was illegal, other than you.
 
I am very happy to see that Bush is at least making nominal attempts to adapt on issues, a trait which he was sorely lacking in the first 6 years of his presidency. But the question is raised because he so fervently insisted that the program was both legal and necessary to protect national security. It's okay to admit you were wrong, but which one is he admitting? That the program was legal or that delays in getting warrants don't actually threaten security?
 
Umm isn't this the exact same FISC that is already supposed to handle these things?

Isn't this just a reversion to the status quo?
 
CreMaster77 said:
since it has always been his contention that getting the warrant would take too much time and threaten security)
Click to expand...

If you read the AG's comments carefully, you will note that the administration and the FISA court agreed to do this on the basis that certain requests be handled in an expedited manner by one particular FISA judge, in order to retain the speed of implementation of surveillance that was the key hallmark of the NSA program. Thus, this appears to be an effort at a compromise in which all parties get what they want: the surveillance to which one party might be in the US is reviewed and authorized by a court (but not necessarily by a specific warrant),and the ability to mount a surveillance quickly and expeditiously is facilitated.

We don't yet know enough of the details to be confident of the process, but as of now, it appears that a FISA judge, instead of the AG or his designate, is the top of the chain of command, so to speak, that NSA goes to when seeking to initiate surveillance under this program. Thus, there is no specific warrant involved, but rather a review by a FISA judge who then issues an order from the bench. It appears to add one more link to the top of the chain of command, but avoids the time-consuming warrant prep process.

Remember that a main objection to using FISA for this program is speed: the decay rate of the value of some especially promising intel, especially that which is obtained on the battlefield, can be extraordinarily high.

Based on what we know as of this moment, this sounds like a very useful compromise.
 
Last edited:

This statement is a testament to why liberals don't belong in positions of power. With smoke still rising from the ashes of the WTC, Bush's priority should've been on whether or not listening to phone calls from foreign terrorists (which is perfectly constitutional) fit in with the radical ACLU interpretation of FISA. BTW, FISA did have a clause in it allowing exceptions for extreme circumstances, which 9/11 clearly qualified as.

Fortunately, we had somebody in office more concerned with preventing anymore mass murdering of Americans.
 

When liberals have issues with things, they can't simply adjust something. They don't like sex offender registrations including lesser offenders, so they take every state to court to have the all registries removed entirely, rather than just pushing to fix them. They don't like the way things are going in Iraq, so retreat is the only option they can conceive of.

Simpletons are prone to this.

If Bush didn't make warrantless wiretapping more palletable for the new liberal Congress, they would have banned all wiretapping. That's what slow people do.
 
The problem is that in hindsight it is much easier to judge to threats to civil liberties that erode the very values which we are trying to protect. Was internment of Japanese during WWII a violation of basic civil liberties? You could certainly make the very same argument that you are making here. It's a good thing with the smoke still rising from Pearl Harbor that FDR interned American citizens as it was more important to prevent anymore mass murdering of Americans. The fundamental question is, is this type of action justified during a time of war and does it erode the liberties we are fighting to protect?
 
aquapub said:
Fortunately, we had somebody in office more concerned with preventing anymore mass murdering of Americans.
Click to expand...
... and we would've been even more fortunate with someone in office concerned about preventing the attack BEFORE the attack happened.
 
niftydrifty said:
... and we would've been even more fortunate with someone in office concerned about preventing the attack BEFORE the attack happened.
Click to expand...

Very true. Had we dealt with al queda in '93 after the first WTC attack, things might not have gotten so out of hand. Or after the Embassy bombings. Or after the USS Cole bombing.
 
niftydrifty said:
... and we would've been even more fortunate with someone in office concerned about preventing the attack BEFORE the attack happened.
Click to expand...
No matter how you frame it, the attacks happened less than a year into the Bush administration. If you are going to attack anyone for failing to prevent an attack that was years in the making, you have to blame Clinton as much if not mroe than Bush.
 
Cremaster77 said:
No matter how you frame it, the attacks happened less than a year into the Bush administration. If you are going to attack anyone for failing to prevent an attack that was years in the making, you have to blame Clinton as much if not mroe than Bush.
Click to expand...
Cut Bill some slack. Preparing Grand Jury testimony takes a lot of time.
 
Last edited:
No matter how you frame it, the attacks happened less than a year into the Bush administration. If you are going to attack anyone for failing to prevent an attack that was years in the making, you have to blame Clinton as much if not mroe than Bush.
Click to expand...
LOL! Hey y'all, learn to read. I said Bush was not concerned. You seem to think I blame him for failing to prevent. I said he was unconcerned. If you'd like to debate my point, present some evidence that demonstrates otherwise.
 
Ahhh, I hadn't thought of this as being the reason that the White House changed its tune regarding this issue.

From one of the letters to the editor in today's New York Times:


:slapme:
 
Or it could be that they came to an agreement on a way to streamline the process with FISA and...despite not needing to do so constitutionally...they decided to go forward with it as a sign of compromise and bipartisan ship due to the outcome of the elections and the perception that the country either 1) agreed with democrats or 2) disagreed with republicans.

I love this "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't stuff". For years liberals bitched about the wiretaps and demanded Bush to use FISA. So now he begins to do that and instead of it possibly being him compromising or a sign of bipartisanship its just becomes another reason to degrade, deride, and critize him.

I really do think sometimes if George Bush swore that the sky was blue that at least 25% of this country would probably scream bloody murder that its really red...and if he ever came around stating that it could possibly be red for some people, they'd call him an idiot for thinking it could be anything but blue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…