• 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.

NSA Spying Much Broader Than Bush Has Admitted

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hmm, I wonder if the NSA has been eavesdropping on internal domestic emails and telephone calls?

NYT: NSA Spying Broader Than Bush Admitted 32 minutes ago

NEW YORK - The National Security Agency has conducted much broader surveillance of e-mails and phone calls — without court orders — than the Bush administration has acknowledged, The New York Times reported on its Web site.

The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications, said the Times in the report late Friday, citing unidentified current and former government officials.

The story did not name the companies.

Since the Times disclosed the domestic spying program last week, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.

But the Times said that NSA technicians have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might lead to terrorists.

The volume of information harvested from telecommunications data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the paper said, quoting an unnamed official.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/domestic_spying
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,450
Reaction score
3,842
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Of course they are...as did Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan.....and pretty much everyone who could before them.....W has simply been caught at it. Unfortunately, though the practce of spying on the population is generally understood to happen, it was always under the Radar in the past. Bush placed himself in the position to get caught, by projecting the image of dishonesty (whether real or not), and thus opening himself and his administration up to investigation, by alot of pissed off people.
The question now is very simple. Are there any checks and balances left to do anything about it. In my opinion there are not.....I mean, if half the stuff this administration has managed to get away with were done ten years ago......Impeachment would have been the least of Clintons worries....heh.
 
H

hipsterdufus

The only hope left is SCOTUS and I'm not putting much faith in them. They did rule against Truman seizing the Steel Mills during war, but that was an entirely different court.

Bush, Stalin, Saddam all agree: "Trust me. All I'm trying to do is protect you."

This is the rhetoric of dictators. All of them.

Does anyone doubt that where this thing is heading is the revelation that Bush spied on his political enemies?

"Oh, gee, whoops, it looks like we were accidently monitoring Kerry's phone. We regret the mistake."

Why avoid FISA unless you're spying on someone the court won't give you a warrant for?

Bush has already been caught in a lie. He claims they were only spying on people with known links to Al Qaeda. We know that to be untrue already. They were fishing through all international calls.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
"Oh, gee, whoops, it looks like we were accidently monitoring Kerry's phone. We regret the mistake."

This is a lie and you know it, hipster. It is a wonder anyone takes you seriously.
 
H

hipsterdufus

KCConservative said:
This is a lie and you know it, hipster. It is a wonder anyone takes you seriously.

Ah welcome back KC:mrgreen:
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
tecoyah said:
Of course they are...as did Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan.....and pretty much everyone who could before them.....W has simply been caught at it. Unfortunately, though the practce of spying on the population is generally understood to happen, it was always under the Radar in the past. Bush placed himself in the position to get caught, by projecting the image of dishonesty (whether real or not), and thus opening himself and his administration up to investigation, by alot of pissed off people.
The question now is very simple. Are there any checks and balances left to do anything about it. In my opinion there are not.....I mean, if half the stuff this administration has managed to get away with were done ten years ago......Impeachment would have been the least of Clintons worries....heh.
I don't believe Clinton, Bush sr. or Reagan did exactly what Bush jr. did. If Clinton had done the exact same thing you know the Republican controlled congress would have had his balls for it. Even if they had done what Bush did it doesn't give Bush a free pass to break the law.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
scottyz said:
I don't believe Clinton, Bush sr. or Reagan did exactly what Bush jr. did. If Clinton had done the exact same thing you know the Republican controlled congress would have had his balls for it. Even if they had done what Bush did it doesn't give Bush a free pass to break the law.

Project Echelon
Know Your Customer

No one has shown a law was broken and the Bush adminsistration has only done what they believe to be lawful.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
hipsterdufus said:
The only hope left is SCOTUS and I'm not putting much faith in them. They did rule against Truman seizing the Steel Mills during war, but that was an entirely different court.

Bush, Stalin, Saddam all agree: "Trust me. All I'm trying to do is protect you."

This is the rhetoric of dictators. All of them.

Does anyone doubt that where this thing is heading is the revelation that Bush spied on his political enemies?

"Oh, gee, whoops, it looks like we were accidently monitoring Kerry's phone. We regret the mistake."

Why avoid FISA unless you're spying on someone the court won't give you a warrant for?

Bush has already been caught in a lie. He claims they were only spying on people with known links to Al Qaeda. We know that to be untrue already. They were fishing through all international calls.

Hiya hipster. Well, the only way the Supreme Court will get this issue before them is if someone whose rights were violated brings an action against the Dept. of Justice. Otherwise, the only thing we can hope is that Congress will hold hearings and do the right thing.

Last night on Hardball, Norah O'Donnell was hosting, and they had a professor who is an expert on NISA (he was Matthew Cooper's lawyer) and an expert on the National Security Agency, whose name escapes me. Anyway, both said that Bush's reasons for saying he had the authority to wiretap without a court order are on shaky grounds.

I know many of you are saying that other presidents wiretapped without obtaining a court order, but please provide me proof. I have yet to see actual proof that Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, or Carter committed the very same act.

If the Constitution provided the president this unquestionable right, tell me why we even have the Patriot Act. If the president can basically do anything he wants in the name of national security, why did we have to create the Patriot Act? Why did we create the NISA court in the first place? These rules were created for reasons. If the president didn't need a court order at all, why is there a rule that allows the president to obtain a court order 15 days after the wiretapping? It doesn't make sense. It looks to me like Bush violated the law, and I hope he suffers greatly because of it.
 
H

hipsterdufus

For my gun toting friends, how is this scenario?

First the President says the Fourth Amendment doesn't matter,

Then the President says the Second Amendment doesn't matter.

Then the President searches your house for your guns.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
hipsterdufus said:
Does anyone doubt that where this thing is heading is the revelation that Bush spied on his political enemies?

Yes, I do. I doubt it very much.

aps said:
If the Constitution provided the president this unquestionable right, tell me why we even have the Patriot Act. If the president can basically do anything he wants in the name of national security, why did we have to create the Patriot Act? Why did we create the NISA court in the first place? These rules were created for reasons. If the president didn't need a court order at all, why is there a rule that allows the president to obtain a court order 15 days after the wiretapping? It doesn't make sense.

..why we even have the Patriot Act: because some of the preventive measures to the events of 9/11 and terrorist targeting of the US were unforeseen and indeed, unknowable, by the framers of the constitution. There are a number of provisions of the Patriot Act and they have absolutely nothing to do with the NSA surveillance program at the heart of the current controversy.

..Why did we create the FISA court in the first place? Like the NSA surveillance program, FISA was created long before the need to provide 'roving' wiretaps became evident, before cell phones existed, in fact. In the context of the times in which FISA was created, it was thought that tapping the main 'land-line' phones used by suspected drug dealers and/or organized crime figures would be sufficient. Technology advances rendered that point of view moot.

...why is there a rule that allows the president to obtain a court order after the wiretapping? Quite simple, actually. As technology advanced, so did the need for investigative procedures to respond faster. The FISA provisions allow for the initiation of domestic wire-taps under certain circumstances and with various approvals, including the approval of the AG and others in a supervisory position. In other words, even though the wiretaps can begin before a court order is obtained, there must still be demonstrated a need for such using specified criteria and such must be approved by those in supervisory positions before the wiretap can begin. These procedures and gaining of approvals still take time, just not as long as FISA court approval. "Immediate" is not really immediate or instantaneous in this context, but it is faster than FISA court approval.

...It doesn't make sense. It makes considerably more sense when you learn more of the details behind the programs and the reasons for their existence. As they have become available, increased knowledge of the details of the programs makes way more sense than the scare headlines and the sophomoric ranting of those seeking partisan advantage.

I say again: The AG has put forth his (and thereby, the Administration's) legal foundation for the NSA surveillance program. It refers to several legal precedents for such. However, if these precedents are found wanting when subjected to congressional review, then so be it. There may well be enough doubt to warrant a SC review, and in the larger scheme, that might be a good thing, in that it would go a long way toward resolving some of these issues that have arisen because of advances in technology coupled with historically unforeseeable, unknowable events and a President willing to push the limits of historical precedents.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
hipsterdufus said:
The only hope left is SCOTUS and I'm not putting much faith in them. They did rule against Truman seizing the Steel Mills during war, but that was an entirely different court.

Bush, Stalin, Saddam all agree: "Trust me. All I'm trying to do is protect you."

This is the rhetoric of dictators. All of them.

Does anyone doubt that where this thing is heading is the revelation that Bush spied on his political enemies?

"Oh, gee, whoops, it looks like we were accidently monitoring Kerry's phone. We regret the mistake."

Why avoid FISA unless you're spying on someone the court won't give you a warrant for?

Bush has already been caught in a lie. He claims they were only spying on people with known links to Al Qaeda. We know that to be untrue already. They were fishing through all international calls.

The fact that this has been going on for a number of decades doesn't seem to Phase you at all. Just so long as you get to compare the president to Stalin and Saddam and essentially call him a dictator. Just doesn't surprise me...LOL
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
Hiya hipster. Well, the only way the Supreme Court will get this issue before them is if someone whose rights were violated brings an action against the Dept. of Justice. Otherwise, the only thing we can hope is that Congress will hold hearings and do the right thing.

Last night on Hardball, Norah O'Donnell was hosting, and they had a professor who is an expert on NISA (he was Matthew Cooper's lawyer) and an expert on the National Security Agency, whose name escapes me. Anyway, both said that Bush's reasons for saying he had the authority to wiretap without a court order are on shaky grounds.

I know many of you are saying that other presidents wiretapped without obtaining a court order, but please provide me proof. I have yet to see actual proof that Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, or Carter committed the very same act.

If the Constitution provided the president this unquestionable right, tell me why we even have the Patriot Act. If the president can basically do anything he wants in the name of national security, why did we have to create the Patriot Act? Why did we create the NISA court in the first place? These rules were created for reasons. If the president didn't need a court order at all, why is there a rule that allows the president to obtain a court order 15 days after the wiretapping? It doesn't make sense. It looks to me like Bush violated the law, and I hope he suffers greatly because of it.

I have read a number of things implicating Clinton and domestic spying , and echelon. 60 minutes did a piece on it back in 2000
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Yes, I do. I doubt it very much.



..why we even have the Patriot Act: because some of the preventive measures to the events of 9/11 and terrorist targeting of the US were unforeseen and indeed, unknowable, by the framers of the constitution. There are a number of provisions of the Patriot Act and they have absolutely nothing to do with the NSA surveillance program at the heart of the current controversy.

But the Patriot Act requires Bush to obtain a court order prior to conducting any surveillance. Let's not forget his speech in April 2004.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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.


The Bush administration has claimed that when Bush was talking that day, he was addressing only the Patriot Act (yeah right). Accepting that statement as true, if the Bush administration has the right to conduct surveillance without a court order, why would he point out that he has to get a court order before he does a "roving wiretap"?

..Why did we create the FISA court in the first place? Like the NSA surveillance program, FISA was created long before the need to provide 'roving' wiretaps became evident, before cell phones existed, in fact. In the context of the times in which FISA was created, it was thought that tapping the main 'land-line' phones used by suspected drug dealers and/or organized crime figures would be sufficient. Technology advances rendered that point of view moot.

FISA was created with various situations in mind, including an act of war. Why do you think it allows for surveillance prior to obtaining a court order? It understood that there were times when surveillance would be necessary right away. If Article II genuinely allows the president to conduct surveillance without a court order, then why would FISA address this very issue? It was created because a president overstepped his bounds.

...why is there a rule that allows the president to obtain a court order after the wiretapping? Quite simple, actually. As technology advanced, so did the need for investigative procedures to respond faster. The FISA provisions allow for the initiation of domestic wire-taps under certain circumstances and with various approvals, including the approval of the AG and others in a supervisory position. In other words, even though the wiretaps can begin before a court order is obtained, there must still be demonstrated a need for such using specified criteria and such must be approved by those in supervisory positions before the wiretap can begin. These procedures and gaining of approvals still take time, just not as long as FISA court approval. "Immediate" is not really immediate or instantaneous in this context, but it is faster than FISA court approval.

How does wiretapping first and then seeking a court order slow down the process. The people conducting the surveillance are not the same people who are filing the request with the FISA court. It makes no sense to have a provision that allows you to obtain a court order after the fact if the president has the right to never file a court order.

...It doesn't make sense. It makes considerably more sense when you learn more of the details behind the programs and the reasons for their existence. As they have become available, increased knowledge of the details of the programs makes way more sense than the scare headlines and the sophomoric ranting of those seeking partisan advantage.

I say again: The AG has put forth his (and thereby, the Administration's) legal foundation for the NSA surveillance program. It refers to several legal precedents for such. However, if these precedents are found wanting when subjected to congressional review, then so be it. There may well be enough doubt to warrant a SC review, and in the larger scheme, that might be a good thing, in that it would go a long way toward resolving some of these issues that have arisen because of advances in technology coupled with historically unforeseeable, unknowable events and a President willing to push the limits of historical precedents.

I really don't care what the AG says--he is the president's puppet. The AG said that we didn't have the follow the Geneva conventions either. My personal belief is that Bush overstepped his bounds and it was all because someone tried to restrain him and he was not going to have any part in that. It's rather pathetic--the president is a tantrum-throwing baby.

I'm adding in part of the transcript from last Wednesday's Countdown, where a constitutional law professor from Georgetown said that she didn't think Bush had the authority to do what he did under either the Constitution or the 9-11 provisions. She is "Low Bloch."

STEWART: Both the president and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have referred to constitutional authority, a certain authority that allows them to go forward and spy in this manner. What specifically in the Constitution are they referring to?

LOW BLOCH: Well, they‘re referring to a provision in the Constitution, Article II, that makes the president the commander-in-chief of the military. But it doesn‘t follow from that, in my opinion, and I think the opinion of many people, that that gives them the authority to secretly wiretap Americans.

STEWART: So that‘s where the issue comes in, on the domestic wiretappings, whether they‘re accidental or not, of people‘s personal conversations?

LOW BLOCH: That‘s right. And then he claims that the Constitution gives him the authority. He also seems to suggest that, when Congress authorized the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11, that Congress was implicitly authorizing secret spying. But, again, I think that‘s a stretch. I don‘t think that‘s what Congress intended. I don‘t think that‘s what the language suggests.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10572822/
 
Last edited:

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
Let's not forget his speech in April 2004.

Lets definitely not forget that quote - all of it, not just the snippet. If you wish to take a snippet out of context, then fine, go ahead. Just be aware that you are reading into it what you wish it to be it rather than what it actually is.

aps said:
Why do you think it allows for surveillance prior to obtaining a court order?

FISA recognized the situation as it was in the 1970s, when FISA was passed. It did not and could foresee the advances in technology and how they might impact the ability of those who wish us harm to communicate and result in our need to match their capabilities with capabilities of our own.

There is no part of the FISA process that allows acting quickly, in real "real time", not just sort-of real time, if you will. If you read FISA, you'll find that even the "do it and then you have 72 hours to get the court order" provisions require fairly extensive AG and supervisory approvals, a process that can take a day or two in and of itself. The only way to act immediately, in true "real time" is to have a procedure in place that allows immediate exploitation of intelligence when the capture/obtaining of that intelligence meets certain criteria. Those criteria haven't been made publicly available, for obvious reasons, but it doesn't take much to imagine that they would include phone numbers or email addresses captured in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan (or any scene of terrorists activity). Those phone numbers or email addresses might or might not be 'owned' by a 'US person' as defined by FISA. In the operational context, that is important, yes, but it is also secondary to gaining as much information as possible as to the identity, location, and knowledge of recent communications that the terrorist activity or terrorist who was formerly in possession of that phone number or email address might have had with whomever is on the other end of that phone number/email. Certainly, these phone numbers/emails are time sensitive, their intelligence value can decay rapidly, sometimes within minutes and hours. FISA does not facilitate the capture of this potentially very, very valuable intelligence.

aps said:
I really don't care what the AG says--he is the president's puppet. The AG said that we didn't have the follow the Geneva conventions either.

A rather sophomoric assertion, one based on apparent ignorance of what was really said. It sounds as if you have not read the actual docs and instead you are parroting various web sites? I hope that is not the case; I have come to expect better from you.

As for the Georgetown prof, it is a credible and educated opinion. But for every one with that opinion, I can trot someone equally credible with an opinion favoring the Bush admin position. For example, the AG in the Clinton admin, certainly not a Bush fan, agreed with the Bush admin's legal position in a recent article, here.
 

Lefty

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
Location
Philadelphia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Actually the process doesn't have to take a day or two. The FISA court is set up to approve wiretappings within minutes if need be. And since the FISA courts creation they have approved over 19,000 wiretapping requests and only rejected about 4 (I forget exactly, but I think it's 4). Time is no justification for these actions since the issue of time was remedied in 1978. If the president felt that there were still issues with the current system he should work to change it, instead of just skipping the whole judicial process entirely.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Lefty: The FISA court is set up to approve wiretappings within minutes if need be.

Thats absolutely right. Its not the time the process takes after you get to the court, but the time it takes to get to the court. The court must be approached with certain docs in hand. In order to approach the court with your request, you are required to have the approvals of several levels of 'supervisors', up to and including the AG (or his designate). One of the specific problems that I have read about with this process has been the initiation of the sequence leading to a request on a battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan, in which the initial discovery is by military folks. Then the intelligence and subsequent requests have to proceed thru the military to the civilian chain of command (from the Pentagon to the DoJ for approvals). This process can take many hours or even a day or two. By which time, the value of the intelligence can be diminished greatly or totally. It just ain't that easy. Or fast.

FISA envisioned mainly US civilian agencies (FBI, local police and other law enforcement agencies) with the occasional participation of the civilian police of other cooperating countries. Quite a differenct environment.
 

Lefty

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
Location
Philadelphia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Lefty: The FISA court is set up to approve wiretappings within minutes if need be.

Thats absolutely right. Its not the time the process takes after you get to the court, but the time it takes to get to the court. The court must be approached with certain docs in hand. In order to approach the court with your request, you are required to have the approvals of several levels of 'supervisors', up to and including the AG (or his designate). One of the specific problems that I have read about with this process has been the initiation of the sequence leading to a request on a battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan, in which the initial discovery is by military folks. Then the intelligence and subsequent requests have to proceed thru the military to the civilian chain of command (from the Pentagon to the DoJ for approvals). This process can take many hours or even a day or two. By which time, the value of the intelligence can be diminished greatly or totally. It just ain't that easy. Or fast.

FISA envisioned mainly US civilian agencies (FBI, local police and other law enforcement agencies) with the occasional participation of the civilian police of other cooperating countries. Quite a differenct environment.

Ahhh, the time it takes to get to court. Well I personally think that's really reaching for an argument here. You're argument seems to be that the US government needs to be able to initiate a wiretap as soon as they get any hint of terrorist activity since it already takes "many hours or even a day or two" for this information to travel through... who knows how many people. Well that's possible with the FISA system because you can go to the court 72 hours after the fact. This leaves enough time for the government to fill out any nessecary paperwork to get court approval. There are no excuses for bypassing this court. If Bush saw a problem with the system in place, why didn't he go to Congress and tell them that something needed to be done? He had years to do something about FISA if it was flawed.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Lefty said:
Ahhh, the time it takes to get to court. Well I personally think that's really reaching for an argument here. You're argument seems to be that the US government needs to be able to initiate a wiretap as soon as they get any hint of terrorist activity since it already takes "many hours or even a day or two" for this information to travel through... who knows how many people. Well that's possible with the FISA system because you can go to the court 72 hours after the fact. This leaves enough time for the government to fill out any nessecary paperwork to get court approval. There are no excuses for bypassing this court. If Bush saw a problem with the system in place, why didn't he go to Congress and tell them that something needed to be done? He had years to do something about FISA if it was flawed.

Lefty. I totally agree. I highly doubt that the actual people who do the surveillance or set up the wiretapping are the same people people who seek the court order. So seeking a court order really isn't about time...now, is it?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Lefty said:
needs to be able to initiate a wiretap as soon as they get any hint of terrorist activity since it already takes "many hours or even a day or two" for this information to travel through...

The important word in your statement is 'hint'. No, its not a 'hint', it is a cell phone number or email address recovered from a known terrorist. Thats much more than a 'hint', thats pretty solid probable cause for further investigation, wouldn't you agree?

Lefty said:
...you can go to the court 72 hours after the fact...

For battlefield signals intelligence, if you have to wait 72 hours, you may as well not 'go' at all. 72 hours is a lifetime - perhaps many lifetimes forfeited.

aps said:
I highly doubt that the actual people who do the surveillance or set up the wiretapping are the same people people who seek the court order. So seeking a court order really isn't about time...now, is it?

The first sentence is most likely a correct statement, since the folks that set up the surveillance can be at any of NSA's worldwide locations. Likewise, the people who initiate the request for surveillance are not those who would seek a court order either. The folks initiating the request for surveillance are most likely in the military chain of command, perhaps the intelligence officers in a battalion in Afghanistan or Iraq who have just recovered a cell phone or a laptop or a computer hard drive.

In a FISA sequence of events (as I understand it), the request then goes through the military chain of command to the civilian chain of command (with necessary approvals affixed along the way), eventually finding its way to the civilian chain of command. The civilian chain of command tops out with the AG (or designate), who must affix his approval to the necessary docs. You think this is not a time-consuming process?

Yes, seeking a court order is about saving time, because saving time can mean saving lives.
 

Lefty

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
Location
Philadelphia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Okay... fine, we've debated this and clearly we don't agree. But answer me this. If it was the system that was flawed, why did the president not go to Congress and ask them to fix the system in place or create a new one?
 

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
TimmyBoy said:
Hmm, I wonder if the NSA has been eavesdropping on internal domestic emails and telephone calls?



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/domestic_spying



I hope the NSA is doing just that, ..& Bush IS acting responsibly. They can listen to ALL of my calls, & intercept all of my E-mail because I have done nothing wrong, & have nothing to fear.

I TRUST my LEADERS, ..at least President Bush. The democrats however, CANNOT be trusted EVER with the security of America.

Why with the democrats & liberals, ..they invest in "civil rights" for foreign nationals, & prefer to WAIT until after a crime has ALREADY been committed. They call that protecting civil rights! (yea, ..for foreign national terrorists)

Unfortunately, ...there are NO civil rights for American citizens AFTER they are already dead first by successful terror plot.

Actually, ...the majority of Americans support Bush on this issue in spite of what the phoney media, & liberal pollsters might tell you!;)
 
H

hipsterdufus

Stu Ghatze said:
I hope the NSA is doing just that, ..& Bush IS acting responsibly. They can listen to ALL of my calls, & intercept all of my E-mail because I have done nothing wrong, & have nothing to fear.

Comrade, this is the same rationale that they used to spy on citizens in the former Soviet Union.

If Americans are so quick to give up all of their freedoms because of 9/11 then the terrorists have already won! Our independence is based on a love of freedom, I'm not so quick to flush it down the toilet.

If our current legislation is not sufficient to deal with the terrorist threat then by all means change it! Especially now that the cat is out of the bag with the NSA. But assuming dictitorial powers, all in the name of protecting us, as Bush has done, is beyond reproach.
 

Lefty

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
Location
Philadelphia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stu Ghatze said:
I hope the NSA is doing just that, ..& Bush IS acting responsibly. They can listen to ALL of my calls, & intercept all of my E-mail because I have done nothing wrong, & have nothing to fear.

Hipsterdufus is right, you could say the same thing in the USSR. And that should scare you. Land of the free? I guess you don't care about that. America stands for more than just stopping terrorism.

“They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin
Stu Ghatze said:
Unfortunately, ...there are NO civil rights for American citizens AFTER they are already dead first by successful terror plot.

So I guess we should make it so that there are no civil libertes for those that are still living. We all care about preventing terrorism, but what we don't agree on is the methods of how our government is doing so.

Stu Ghatze said:
Actually, ...the majority of Americans support Bush on this issue in spite of what the phoney media, & liberal pollsters might tell you!;)

Actually the majority of Americans disapprove of the job that Bush is doing, and no poll that I am aware of shows that Americans think the President has the power to order warrentless wiretaps.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
hipsterdufus said:
Comrade, this is the same rationale that they used to spy on citizens in the former Soviet Union.

If Americans are so quick to give up all of their freedoms because of 9/11 then the terrorists have already won! Our independence is based on a love of freedom, I'm not so quick to flush it down the toilet.

If our current legislation is not sufficient to deal with the terrorist threat then by all means change it! Especially now that the cat is out of the bag with the NSA. But assuming dictitorial powers, all in the name of protecting us, as Bush has done, is beyond reproach.
What do you have to hide? What are you worried that a spy would find out? :confused:
 
Top Bottom