NSA Was Spying of Americans Long Before 911

[Stinger]

If Bush didn't bypass the court system

Since he doesn't have to go through them in matters of foreign signals intelligence gathering there is no bypassing so your whole premise is false along with your conclusion.

 

[danarhea]

Since he doesn't have to go through them in matters of foreign signals intelligence gathering there is no bypassing so your whole premise is false along with your conclusion.

Since when is spying on the Quakers tantamount to foreign intelligence gathering? Last I heard, the Quakers were located in Pennsylvania. When did Pennsylvania secede from the Union and become a foreign power?

 

[TimmyBoy]

Since he doesn't have to go through them in matters of foreign signals intelligence gathering there is no bypassing so your whole premise is false along with your conclusion.

King George Bush Jr. doesn't need to go through the court system so long as he keeps his illegal activities a secret. That's the key, keeping it a secret and sometimes, that can be hard to do when most people will dime you out in a minute. Now, on the same token, I will say that Bush's NSA spying activities has probably saved the US from a dirty bomb attack, but he prevented such an attack by violating the 4th amendment which is illegal. I do know the law and if it's one thing that was hammerred into while in Mandate, it was the 4th amendment and the concept of what constitutes an illegal search and seizure. These activities that Bush and the NSA have engaged constitute a violation of the 4th amendment. The problem that I see here, is the way that this War on Terror is being fought is causing America to destroy itself and the fundamental principles it was founded on, in misguided attempts to protect the country. The best way to fight terror is through freedom and not spying. Due to the fact that Bush did violate the 4th Amendment when going after this particular suspect in the BBC article, they were unable to prosecute him to the furthest extent because the evidence was gathered illegal and thus a jury will never be able to see that evidence.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I agree with TimmyBoy, what a waste to gather evidence illegally and end up letting the bad guy walk because you should have used your head first. How many more assholes will we have to let free early because our government was unwilling to obey the law when gathering evidence against them?

I can't believe what some people are willing to let the government get away with in the name of personal safety. I think they are cowards, and they are exactly what the Founding Fathers warned us about. Hold your government accountable, never give them a blank check!

 

[KCConservative]

I can't believe what some people are willing to let the government get away with in the name of personal safety.

Tell that to the 3000 people who went to work in New York on that fateful September morning.

 

[TimmyBoy]

I agree with TimmyBoy, what a waste to gather evidence illegally and end up letting the bad guy walk because you should have used your head first. How many more assholes will we have to let free early because our government was unwilling to obey the law when gathering evidence against them?

I can't believe what some people are willing to let the government get away with in the name of personal safety. I think they are cowards, and they are exactly what the Founding Fathers warned us about. Hold your government accountable, never give them a blank check!

Well, you have to understand what exactly the government is and how it operates first. You have several branches of government that act independently of each other. Those branches of government are the executive, judicial and legislative branches. All three can break the law sometimes but generally, when that happens, the other branches of government are suppose to step in and check the law breaking actions of the other. A common misconception that people have of the police is that they are part of the judicial branch of government, which is untrue, the police, president and the NSA are part of the executive branch of government. The role of the police and this is the role the NSA and Bush in some indirect way assumed is to gather the evidence against suspects. The role of the judicial branch which compromises the court room and a judge is to interpret the laws and to act as a check when the executive branch gets out of line or does not stay within the law. Because Bush violated the 4th amendment when going after a US citizen who was acting on behalf of Al-queda to set off a dirty bomb in the US, that evidence gathered will not be allowed into evidence in a courtroom by the judge, because the evidence was gathered illegally by violating the suspect's 4th amendment rights. The Bush Adminstration and the prosecutors know this and therefore are trying to go after the suspect on different charges with evidence that was not gathered illegally and did not violate the 4th amendment. That way, the evidence can't be suppressed in a suppression hearing and the jury will be able to see that evidence. The jury, in my view, will not see the evidence that this person intended to set off a dirty bomb because that evidence was gathered illegally. The Bush Adminstration knew, that because this terrorist suspect was a US citizen, they could not keep the suspect in detention indefinately as an "Enemy combatant" though they did keep for a long time. It would create legal trouble for the Bush adminstration to keep this US citizen who was acting on behalf of Al-queda in detention with no legal representation as an "enemy combatant." Really, this status is illegal when applied to US citizens because it does not afford the citizen his constitutional rights to a fair and speedy trial and representation when charged with a crime, nor does it allow the accused to confront their accusers in a court of law. When you are charged with a crime and you are a US citizens, you have a right to fair and speedy trial and to confront your accusers and to have a lawyer present during questioning or during a trial. These are your rights as a citizen and this "enemy combatant" designation really is not legal if Bush were to apply to American citizens. Now, he could probably get away with it using it on non-US citizens.

 

[TimmyBoy]

And you see, it is the job of the court room to act as a check against the police, who are part of the executive branch of government and not the judicial branch when a trial takes place or when a probable cause hearing is given or suspression hearings on evidence. And many times a judge will rule against prosecutors and the police's methods. The judicial branch also has the job of keeping the legislative and executive branch (which includes the president and congress) in check as well.

 

[Pacridge]

And you see, it is the job of the court room to act as a check against the police, who are part of the executive branch of government and not the judicial branch when a trial takes place or when a probable cause hearing is given or suspression hearings on evidence. And many times a judge will rule against prosecutors and the police's methods. The judicial branch also has the job of keeping the legislative and executive branch (which includes the president and congress) in check as well.

The police are part of the Executive Branch? Which police?

 

[TimmyBoy]

The police are part of the Executive Branch? Which police?

The cops that throw handcuffs on criminals in your community and accross the USA. That includes FBI Agents. They are NOT part of the judicial branch. The police are part of the executive branch. Part of the job of the executive branch is to carry out the wishes of the judicial and legislative branch and to enforce those laws and interpretations.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Executive Branch = execute, do what you are told, enforce the laws, carry them out. That is what the police do.

 

[Pacridge]

The cops that throw handcuffs on criminals in your community and accross the USA. That includes FBI Agents. They are NOT part of the judicial branch. The police are part of the executive branch. Part of the job of the executive branch is to carry out the wishes of the judicial and legislative branch and to enforce those laws and interpretations.

You should really look into a civics class. Law Enforcement in this country, by a large margin, are locally administrated. That means they work not for the Federal Government but the states, counties and cities.

 

[TimmyBoy]

You should really look into a civics class. Law Enforcement in this country, by a large margin, are locally administrated. That means they work not for the Federal Government but the states, counties and cities.

Sure buddy. My police academy instructors and the lawyers and prosecutors who taught my mandate school and who graduated from top law schools need to re-take their civics class too. You don't know what you are talking about. You local courtroom is part of the judicial branch of government as your local police are part of the executive branch of government. You local police nor your local courtroom cannot merely act on it's own and every state in the union are subject to federal laws and regulations not to mention, evey state and local munipality must respect every citizens right to the Bill of Rights. Just because you have a local munipality or court, doesn't mean they can ignore the laws of the land. They are part of the laws of the land and not seperate from them merely because they are locally adminstered. The fact that the police are part of the executive branch of government was explained to us in great detail at my police academy school by people who went to top law schools and police officers. I am willing to bet you all my next paycheck that I am right. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.

 

[TimmyBoy]

You should really look into a civics class. Law Enforcement in this country, by a large margin, are locally administrated. That means they work not for the Federal Government but the states, counties and cities.

And since you want to be a smart ass. I am curious, how much time have you spent in the courtroom? How much time have you spent as part of the system?

 

[TimmyBoy]

I just want to provide some links, one from Widepedia, to prove wise ass over wrong and so that others think I am not trying to bullshit them. I know what I am talking about. Here is a caption from the wikepedia on what the role of the executive branch of government does whether it be locally adminstered or federally adminstered:

Role of the executive
It is usually the role of the executive to:

Enforce the law. To achieve this the executive administers the prisons and the police force, and prosecutes criminals in the name of the state.
Conduct the foreign relations of the state.
Command the armed forces.
Appoint state officials, including judges and diplomats.
Administer government departments and public services.
Issue executive orders (also known as secondary legislation, ordinances, edicts or decrees).
Most constitutions require that certain executive powers may only be exercised in conjunction with the legislature. For example, often the consent of the legislature is required to ratify treaties, appoint important officials, or to declare war. In the United Kingdom, however, the executive is exempt from most such limitations under the royal prerogative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government)

 

[Pacridge]

And since you want to be a smart ass. I am curious, how much time have you spent in the courtroom? How much time have you spent as part of the system?

Probably about 10 days a month for 16 years.

Law Enforcement

State of Oregon

 

[Pacridge]

Sure buddy. My police academy instructors and the lawyers and prosecutors who taught my mandate school and who graduated from top law schools need to re-take their civics class too. You don't know what you are talking about. You local courtroom is part of the judicial branch of government as your local police are part of the executive branch of government. You local police nor your local courtroom cannot merely act on it's own and every state in the union are subject to federal laws and regulations not to mention, evey state and local munipality must respect every citizens right to the Bill of Rights. Just because you have a local munipality or court, doesn't mean they can ignore the laws of the land. They are part of the laws of the land and not seperate from them merely because they are locally adminstered. The fact that the police are part of the executive branch of government was explained to us in great detail at my police academy school by people who went to top law schools and police officers. I am willing to bet you all my next paycheck that I am right. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.

I don't know anything about the people you took courses from, but from what you're saying you need to go back and retake some classes. Here's a site that might help you with your confusion.

http://search.officer.com/agencysearch/

 

[TimmyBoy]

Probably about 10 days a month for 16 years.

Law Enforcement

State of Oregon

So, somebody is wrong. If one were to do research on the internet, they would see that I am right and you are wrong.

 

[TimmyBoy]

I don't know anything about the people you took courses from, but from what you're saying you need to go back and retake some classes. Here's a site that might help you with your confusion.

http://search.officer.com/agencysearch/

I'm sticking to my guns buddy. Just go and check some very respected publications on the internet for sources and you will I am right. I don't back down from what I know is right and you as a cop yourself would know that you always stick to your guns and never back down or change your story when you know you are right.

 

[TimmyBoy]

I don't know anything about the people you took courses from, but from what you're saying you need to go back and retake some classes. Here's a site that might help you with your confusion.

http://search.officer.com/agencysearch/

Since you have served as a police officer for 16 years, I would like to comment that your mandate POST certification standards were not near as rigid as my own, given that you went through Mandate alot longer ago than myself and the standards are much higher today than they were when you went through Mandate. I know I am right when I state that the police are part of the executive branch of government, whether it be locally adminstered in a city or federally administered. I will stick to my guns and won't back down. If a user of the internet were to do research from reputable and reliable sources of information, they would see that I am correct in my statements. Reputable and reliable sources of information on the internet back my assertion. Since you are so sure of yourself, it should not be any problem at all for you to provide a link from a reliable and reputable source disproving my assertion. I have provided one source from wikepedia and their are many other sources which supports my position that I am correct and you are wrong. Now, another thing I would like to comment on. The people that taught me seem to be very professional, many of them law enforcement officers themselves, a few prosecutors and attorney's with a good reputation in their communities. If you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I am wrong, I will retract my statement and admit that you were right, but I know I am right and I know that you won't be able to prove me wrong. But again, if you can provide links to reliable sources that demonstrably prove the police are not part of the executive branch whether it be adminstered at more local level or federal level, I welcome the opportunity for this debate. If you are so sure of yourself as I am very sure of myself, then it should be no problem for you to disprove me. This my challenge to you. Your failure to respond with any reliable sources of information disproving my assertion makes me think that you are in checkmate in this debate. That the contest is over. Game over. That you have lost and I have won. I don't doubt that you are a cop, but their is alot of cops who don't know their own role nor do they know all the laws or how they are applied either. The older veteran cops as well, are not always up to date on new laws and on the same token, haven't had to go through a POST certification course as rigorous as the new recruits have had to go through because as years go by, more and more lawsuits filed against cops, governments and their police departments add more requirements in the POST certification process. But again, I welcome any debate or challenge you have to offer. I think this would be a good and healthy debate for the forum as well as it would give people a better understanding of the system and how it operates.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I can't believe what some people are willing to let the government get away with in the name of personal safety.

Tell that to the 3000 people who went to work in New York on that fateful September morning.

Oh please. There are a dozen ways that 9/11 could have been prevented without illegally wiretapping American citizens. For one, the CAPPS database flagged virtually all of the 9/11 hijackers as a potential threat before they got on those planes. But you'd rather let the terrorists win by allowing them to terrorize you into giving up the American freedoms that hundreds of thousands died to give to you, and I still think that is cowardice.

 

[Pacridge]

Since you have served as a police officer for 16 years, I would like to comment that your mandate POST certification standards were not near as rigid as my own, given that you went through Mandate alot longer ago than myself and the standards are much higher today than they were when you went through Mandate. I know I am right when I state that the police are part of the executive branch of government, whether it be locally adminstered in a city or federally administered. I will stick to my guns and won't back down. If a user of the internet were to do research from reputable and reliable sources of information, they would see that I am correct in my statements. Reputable and reliable sources of information on the internet back my assertion. Since you are so sure of yourself, it should not be any problem at all for you to provide a link from a reliable and reputable source disproving my assertion. I have provided one source from wikepedia and their are many other sources which supports my position that I am correct and you are wrong. Now, another thing I would like to comment on. The people that taught me seem to be very professional, many of them law enforcement officers themselves, a few prosecutors and attorney's with a good reputation in their communities. If you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I am wrong, I will retract my statement and admit that you were right, but I know I am right and I know that you won't be able to prove me wrong. But again, if you can provide links to reliable sources that demonstrably prove the police are not part of the executive branch whether it be adminstered at more local level or federal level, I welcome the opportunity for this debate. If you are so sure of yourself as I am very sure of myself, then it should be no problem for you to disprove me. This my challenge to you. Your failure to respond with any reliable sources of information disproving my assertion makes me think that you are in checkmate in this debate. That the contest is over. Game over. That you have lost and I have won. I don't doubt that you are a cop, but their is alot of cops who don't know their own role nor do they know all the laws or how they are applied either. The older veteran cops as well, are not always up to date on new laws and on the same token, haven't had to go through a POST certification course as rigorous as the new recruits have had to go through because as years go by, more and more lawsuits filed against cops, governments and their police departments add more requirements in the POST certification process. But again, I welcome any debate or challenge you have to offer. I think this would be a good and healthy debate for the forum as well as it would give people a better understanding of the system and how it operates.

Are you saying they're under the Executive Branch of their government? Or the Executive Branch of the Federal Government? I'll go look at your source.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Are you saying they're under the Executive Branch of their government? Or the Executive Branch of the Federal Government? I'll go look at your source.

The local police fall under the executive branch of the local government. But the first 10 amendments of the federal constitution must be respected by all police everywhere in the union. These are the Bill of Rights. According to some of my instructors, they stated that before the Civil War, states did not have to respect the first 10 amendments of the constitution at the local level but had to respect those 10 amendments after the defeat of the Confederacy, at the local level.

 

[Pacridge]

I just want to provide some links, one from Widepedia, to prove wise ass over wrong and so that others think I am not trying to bullshit them. I know what I am talking about. Here is a caption from the wikepedia on what the role of the executive branch of government does whether it be locally adminstered or federally adminstered:

Role of the executive
It is usually the role of the executive to:

Enforce the law. To achieve this the executive administers the prisons and the police force, and prosecutes criminals in the name of the state.
Conduct the foreign relations of the state.
Command the armed forces.
Appoint state officials, including judges and diplomats.
Administer government departments and public services.
Issue executive orders (also known as secondary legislation, ordinances, edicts or decrees).
Most constitutions require that certain executive powers may only be exercised in conjunction with the legislature. For example, often the consent of the legislature is required to ratify treaties, appoint important officials, or to declare war. In the United Kingdom, however, the executive is exempt from most such limitations under the royal prerogative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government)

For some reason your link isn't working for me. Here's a link that discusses the checks and blances within governments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances

In this link you'll notice the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has:

Police powers of arrest, detainment, and search This is why federal law enforcement officers are under the EB.

What you'll also find on this site is:

The American states mirror the executive/legislative/judicial split of the federal government. Major cities tend to do so as well, but in general, the arrangements for local and regional governments vary widely. Because the judicial branch is often a part of a state or county government, the geographic jurisdiction of local judges is often not coterminous with municipal boundaries.

In many American states and local governments, executive authority and law enforcement authority are separated by allowing citizens to directly elect public prosecutors (district attorneys and state attorneys-general). In some states, judges are also directly elected.

Many localities also separate special powers from their executive and legislative branches, through the direct election of police chiefs, school boards, transit agency boards, park commissioners, insurance commissioners, and the like.

I think what you're confusing is the difference between federal law enforcement and state and local. The Federal Government does not control local law enforcement. They often work together, but not always. Consider the current situation with medical marijuana laws. Here in Oregon state and local LE will not arrest or prosecute individuals for the possession or manufacture of marijuana if they have a state issued card. Federal LE will arrest and prosecute regardless of the individuals status with the State.

This issue has gone as far as the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's 2005 decision did not expand the powers of federal law enforcement agencies like the DEA; it only affirmed that they can enforce federal laws prohibiting the use of controlled substances, regardless of state, county, or municipal law. It is not anticipated that federal agents will step up efforts against state-authorized growers, dispensaries, or patients because of this decision. State and local law enforcement officers, who are responsible for the enforcement of state and municipal laws, will most likely continue to honor the democratic decisions that their residents have made about marijuana policy.

If, as you seem to think, LE in this country was under the EB there would be no reason to have these cases. The EB would simply tell local LE to enforce these laws. But that's not the way it works. Here in Oregon right after the SC ruling the Attorney General for the State directed the State to temporally stop issuing cards. Within weeks he issued an opinion stating the State of Oregon's voter's wishes can not be over ruled by federal actions. In a statement he issued he said, basically, in Oregon Oregon Law Enforcement is to abide by the laws of Oregon and the will of Oregon voters. He also stated these laws and these cards would not protect individuals from federal law or law enforcement. That individuals obtaining the cards and using and/or growing marijuana could be subject to federal arrest and prosecution. State cards were again issued.

Here in Oregon there's currently another fight between state and federal laws and agencies regarding assisted suicide.

Again, if it worked the way you're stating it does, there would be no reasons for these disagreements. State, county and local law enforcement agencies are not under the Executive Branch of the federal government. In fact in many municipalities local law enforcement agencies are not even under the executive branch of their local government, often they fall under the judicial branch.

 

[TimmyBoy]

For some reason your link isn't working for me. Here's a link that discusses the checks and blances within governments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances

In this link you'll notice the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has:

Police powers of arrest, detainment, and search This is why federal law enforcement officers are under the EB.

What you'll also find on this site is:

The American states mirror the executive/legislative/judicial split of the federal government. Major cities tend to do so as well, but in general, the arrangements for local and regional governments vary widely. Because the judicial branch is often a part of a state or county government, the geographic jurisdiction of local judges is often not coterminous with municipal boundaries.

In many American states and local governments, executive authority and law enforcement authority are separated by allowing citizens to directly elect public prosecutors (district attorneys and state attorneys-general). In some states, judges are also directly elected.

Many localities also separate special powers from their executive and legislative branches, through the direct election of police chiefs, school boards, transit agency boards, park commissioners, insurance commissioners, and the like.

I think what you're confusing is the difference between federal law enforcement and state and local. The Federal Government does not control local law enforcement. They often work together, but not always. Consider the current situation with medical marijuana laws. Here in Oregon state and local LE will not arrest or prosecute individuals for the possession or manufacture of marijuana if they have a state issued card. Federal LE will arrest and prosecute regardless of the individuals status with the State.

This issue has gone as far as the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's 2005 decision did not expand the powers of federal law enforcement agencies like the DEA; it only affirmed that they can enforce federal laws prohibiting the use of controlled substances, regardless of state, county, or municipal law. It is not anticipated that federal agents will step up efforts against state-authorized growers, dispensaries, or patients because of this decision. State and local law enforcement officers, who are responsible for the enforcement of state and municipal laws, will most likely continue to honor the democratic decisions that their residents have made about marijuana policy.

If, as you seem to think, LE in this country was under the EB there would be no reason to have these cases. The EB would simply tell local LE to enforce these laws. But that's not the way it works. Here in Oregon right after the SC ruling the Attorney General for the State directed the State to temporally stop issuing cards. Within weeks he issued an opinion stating the State of Oregon's voter's wishes can not be over ruled by federal actions. In a statement he issued he said, basically, in Oregon Oregon Law Enforcement is to abide by the laws of Oregon and the will of Oregon voters. He also stated these laws and these cards would not protect individuals from federal law or law enforcement. That individuals obtaining the cards and using and/or growing marijuana could be subject to federal arrest and prosecution. State cards were again issued.

Here in Oregon there's currently another fight between state and federal laws and agencies regarding assisted suicide.

Again, if it worked the way you're stating it does, there would be no reasons for these disagreements. State, county and local law enforcement agencies are not under the Executive Branch of the federal government. In fact in many municipalities local law enforcement agencies are not even under the executive branch of their local government, often they fall under the judicial branch.

The Police department I used to work for, we did not write or pass the laws, so that didn't make us part of the legislative branch of the city government. We are not the ultimate interpreter of the city laws and ordinances, so that doesn't make us part of the judicial branch of city government, we did however, execute, carry out and enforce the laws of the city, including city ordinances. So, this would make us part of the executive branch of the city government. Now, I don't know how some of these other city or county governments run their operations. But, in all honesty and sincerity, I was taught in my Mandate school that the police are part of the executive branch. That's not to say the local police are part of the executive branch of the federal government, but rather the executive branch of the local or city government. We would arrest and then bring them to the court system where the courtroom and jury ultimately decides their fate, depending on the charges. Once we arrest for violations of the law and show up for our subpenoas and testify in court and the judge afforded the opportunity of the accused to confront us as required by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we have done our job.

Now, according to what I was taught as well, before the Civil War, the states did not have to respect the first 10 amendments at the local and state level. This was considered part of the concept of states rights. Now, on the federal level, the federal government had to respect a citizen's first 10 amendments. This was how things worked before the Civil War. After the Civil War, the state and local governments everywhere in the Union had to respect a citizens first 10 amendment rights at the local and state level and not just at the federal level.

 

[Pacridge]

The Police department I used to work for, we did not write or pass the laws, so that didn't make us part of the legislative branch of the city government. We are not the ultimate interpreter of the city laws and ordinances, so that doesn't make us part of the judicial branch of city government, we did however, execute, carry out and enforce the laws of the city, including city ordinances. So, this would make us part of the executive branch of the city government. Now, I don't know how some of these other city or county governments run their operations. But, in all honesty and sincerity, I was taught in my Mandate school that the police are part of the executive branch. That's not to say the local police are part of the executive branch of the federal government, but rather the executive branch of the local or city government. We would arrest and then bring them to the court system where the courtroom and jury ultimately decides their fate, depending on the charges. Once we arrest for violations of the law and show up for our subpenoas and testify in court and the judge afforded the opportunity of the accused to confront us as required by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we have done our job.

Now, according to what I was taught as well, before the Civil War, the states did not have to respect the first 10 amendments at the local and state level. This was considered part of the concept of states rights. Now, on the federal level, the federal government had to respect a citizen's first 10 amendments. This was how things worked before the Civil War. After the Civil War, the state and local governments everywhere in the Union had to respect a citizens first 10 amendment rights at the local and state level and not just at the federal level.

You probably were part of your local governments Executive Branch. It works that way in a lot of states, counties and cities. But unless you worked for the federal government you were not under the Executive Branch of the federal government. However there are many local LE agencies that are under the Judicial branch of their government. It all depend on where you work and for whom.