• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Poll: spying needs approval

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if the calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.

Over the past three weeks, President Bush and top aides have defended the electronic monitoring program they secretly launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as a vital tool to protect the nation from al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

Yet 56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mail messages of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.

Agreeing with the White House, about 42 percent of those surveyed do not believe the court approval is necessary.
According to the poll, age matters in how people view the monitoring. Nearly two-thirds of those 18 to 29 believe warrants should be required, while people 65 and older are evenly divided.

Party affiliation is a factor, too. Almost three-fourths of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to require court warrants.
http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/386167.html

The last poll I saw on the subject didn't asked the specific question about spying without warrants. This one seems to ask that question.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stinger said:
And the demographics are skewed 52 - 40 Democrats over Republican. What would you expect?

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr060107-2topline.pdf&id=2929
I would say this poll takes precedence. Actually, not a poll, but the results of an analysis by the non-partisan [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Congressional Research Service. In short, it says that Bush is on questionable and shaky legal ground.

Article is here.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
danarhea said:
I would say this poll takes precedence. Actually, not a poll, but the results of an analysis by the non-partisan [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Congressional Research Service. In short, it says that Bush is on questionable and shaky legal ground.

Article is here.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
The Justice Deparment as already issued a statement that the legal reasoning this "Research" group is flawed and the actual court cases supporting the Adminsitration have been posted many times over here. Of course it is not surprising since the congress is attempting a power grab with this phoney issue.

BTW did I ask if that is an old Jaguar Bass in the avitar?
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,321
Reaction score
13,553
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Stinger said:
The Justice Deparment as already issued a statement that the legal reasoning this "Research" group is flawed and the actual court cases supporting the Adminsitration have been posted many times over here. Of course it is not surprising since the congress is attempting a power grab with this phoney issue.

BTW did I ask if that is an old Jaguar Bass in the avitar?
Wow, the department accused of wrong doing says that the legal group who says their justification is shaky at best is wrong.

So basically, the defendant is disagreeing with one of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses.


Imagine that.:roll:

If the Bush Administration thought they already had the legal justification to wiretap domestically without warrants (all the court cases you mention deal with foreign wiretapping), then why is it that they went to the congressional leaders first to see if they could get FISA law changed, and then, only after they were told that congress would not go for it, they chose to ignore the law?

All congress is saying is that they should have oversight into this program and that there should be judicial approval for wiretaps. It seems that you believe the President should be able to act with impunity and without any checks at all to his power. You do realize that you will be setting precedence for Hillary Clinton assuming she wins in 2008. Do you want to hand her the power to do as she pleases without judicial approval and without congressional oversight so long as her administration makes the argument that it is in the name of fighting terror? I sure don’t.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I posted this in the other thread on how Bush's bases for conducting warrantless wiretapping is on shakey legal ground. I'll post it here too.

Not only did the CRS find that the president is on shakey legal ground, but a group of very distinguished law professors and former government officials (14 to be exact) submitted a letter to Congressional leaders, where they expressed serious concerns about the legality of Bush's actions. These aren't your average Joe Schmo legal scholars. The law schools that these individuals teach at are the best in the country--Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Duke, etc. Most of these people graduated from the top law schools. Lawrence Tribe is a constitutional law expert and has argued over 30 cases before the Supreme Court. Curtis Bradley is an expert in national security and foreign affairs law.

Here is the link to the letter. I haven't read it in its entirety (but I will), but it sure looks like Bush has overstepped his authority. Tsk tsk


http://balkin.blogspot.com/DOJ.Response.AUMF.final.pdf
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
scottyz said:
http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/386167.html

The last poll I saw on the subject didn't asked the specific question about spying without warrants. This one seems to ask that question.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha :rofl YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE A POLL!

Spying needs appoval! That's a new one! Well DO I NEED YOUR PERMISSION TO NEOTRACE YOU!? :rofl

Just kidding but you get the point! :mrgreen:
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
stsburns said:
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha :rofl YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE A POLL!

Spying needs appoval! That's a new one! Well DO I NEED YOUR PERMISSION TO NEOTRACE YOU!? :rofl

Just kidding but you get the point! :mrgreen:
stsburns, why don't you look at the post above yours in this thread. Fourteen legal scholars have determined that Bush did not have the autority to conduct warrantless searches. They address the arguments that the Bushies have used, such as Congress gave him the authority when it said he could use "all necessary means." They also point out that Bush does not have the authority under Article II of the constitution. So while, yes, it really shouldn't mean much that the majority of Americans believe that Bush should get prior approval, but when legal scholars who are experts in Constitutional Law from Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School, Yale Law School, Duke Law School, University of Chicago Law School, Georgetown Law Center, and others say that Bush didn't have the authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping and needed prior approval, well then there is your answer.

Here is the link to the letter they sent to Congressional leaders. http://balkin.blogspot.com/DOJ.Response.AUMF.final.pdf

Now that it has been shown that he does not have the legal authority, will this be an impeachable offense?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Another poll...

This ABC News/Washington Post poll is demographically balanced, with 31% Dems and 30% Repubs, so the results shouldn't be skewed. Key data:

6. What do you think is more important right now - (for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy); or (for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats)?
Investigate threats: 65%
Respect privacy: 32%
No opinion: 3%

7. In investigating terrorism, do you think federal agencies are or are not intruding on some Americans' privacy rights?
Are: 64%
Are not: 32%
No opinion: 4%

8. (IF FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE INTRUDING, Q7) Do you think those intrusions are justified or not justified?
Justified: 49%
Not justified: 46%
No opinion: 5%
This poll suggests that approx two-thirds of Americans believe that no "unjustified" intrusions into privacy rights are taking place.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Another poll...

This ABC News/Washington Post poll is demographically balanced, with 31% Dems and 30% Repubs, so the results shouldn't be skewed. Key data:

This poll suggests that approx two-thirds of Americans believe that no "unjustified" intrusions into privacy rights are taking place.
Hmmm. When George Bush says that he is doing this to protect us and how we haven't had another attack, in part, because of this horse$hit, and the VP says that we could have prevented September 11th had we conducted warrantless wiretaps, no wonder people think that the intrustions are not "unjustified."
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Was clintons legal base for warrantless searches on shaky ground?
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
Was clintons legal base for warrantless searches on shaky ground?
Please provide evidence that Clinton conducted warrantless searches. I believe your question is based upon a republican talking point.

Your question is as ridiculous as Scott Peterson saying, "Was Mark Hacking's murder of his wife and unborn child a crime?"
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
Please provide evidence that Clinton conducted warrantless searches. I believe your question is based upon a republican talking point.

Your question is as ridiculous as Scott Peterson saying, "Was Mark Hacking's murder of his wife and unborn child a crime?"
So your saying that Echelon got warrants for all electronic transmissions that it intercepted?
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
So your saying that Echelon got warrants for all electronic transmissions that it intercepted?
I have no idea and, frankly, I don't care. Using the excuse that other presidents have done it (which I doubt is the case) is a pretty pathetic defense.

Just as I suspected--it's a republican talking point. Yawn.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
Wow, the department accused of wrong doing says that the legal group who says their justification is shaky at best is wrong.
The Justice Department is not accused of doing anything, they simply render the opinion of the Justice Department.

So basically, the defendant is disagreeing with one of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses.
There is no evidence the Congressional Research Group is an expert or more an expert than the courts that have ruled in favor of the Executive Branch or the Justice Departement or the Inspectors General office.

If the Bush Administration thought they already had the legal justification to wiretap domestically without warrants (all the court cases you mention deal with foreign wiretapping), then why is it that they went to the congressional leaders first to see if they could get FISA law changed, and then, only after they were told that congress would not go for it, they chose to ignore the law?
I guess you call it trying to work with congress so that it's laws abide by the constitution.

All congress is saying is that they should have oversight into this program
As I said a power grab by the congress.

and that there should be judicial approval for wiretaps.
These are not within the jurisdiction of the judical branch and it has no authority or expertise in foreign intelligence.

It seems that you believe the President should be able to act with impunity and without any checks at all to his power.
And it seems to me that when some can't make a rational arguement they throw out these silly little blanket statements. Tell you what, I will say what I believe and you can say what you believe and we can go from there.

You do realize that you will be setting precedence for Hillary Clinton assuming she wins in 2008.
Are you saying Hillary is too dangerous to be the President?

Do you want to hand her the power to do as she pleases without judicial approval and without congressional oversight so long as her administration makes the argument that it is in the name of fighting terror? I sure don’t.
When it comes to foeign intelligence gathering? Anyone who is elected does and should have that power. If you don't think Hillary is capable of using it properly then I suggest you don't vote for her. And after her dealing with FBI files that might not be a bad idea.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I posted this in the other thread on how Bush's bases for conducting warrantless wiretapping is on shakey legal ground. I'll post it here too.
How come it wasn't shakey ground when Clinton did it?


For Immediate Release February 9, 1995


EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.


WILLIAM J. CLINTON


THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
The Justice Department is not accused of doing anything, they simply render the opinion of the Justice Department.

There is no evidence the Congressional Research Group is an expert or more an expert than the courts that have ruled in favor of the Executive Branch or the Justice Departement or the Inspectors General office.

I guess you call it trying to work with congress so that it's laws abide by the constitution.

As I said a power grab by the congress.

These are not within the jurisdiction of the judical branch and it has no authority or expertise in foreign intelligence.

And it seems to me that when some can't make a rational arguement they throw out these silly little blanket statements. Tell you what, I will say what I believe and you can say what you believe and we can go from there.

Are you saying Hillary is too dangerous to be the President?

When it comes to foeign intelligence gathering? Anyone who is elected does and should have that power. If you don't think Hillary is capable of using it properly then I suggest you don't vote for her. And after her dealing with FBI files that might not be a bad idea.
Stinger, please read this letter from Constitutional law experts. http://balkin.blogspot.com/DOJ.Response.AUMF.final.pdf

This letter debunks the bases upon which the Justice Dept. claims Bush had the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance. In it, they state, "The Supreme Court has never upheld warrantless wiretapping within the United States." They address the Article II argument, the "any means necessary" argument, and the reliance upon the Hamdi decision. Totally debunked.

Hmmm, whose opinion has more weight to it? Stinger's or a group of 14 experts in this area of law? Hmmmmmmmm
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
Stinger, please read this letter from Constitutional law experts. http://balkin.blogspot.com/DOJ.Response.AUMF.final.pdf

This letter debunks the bases upon which the Justice Dept. claims Bush had the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance. In it, they state, "The Supreme Court has never upheld warrantless wiretapping within the United States." They address the Article II argument, the "any means necessary" argument, and the reliance upon the Hamdi decision. Totally debunked.

Hmmm, whose opinion has more weight to it? Stinger's or a group of 14 experts in this area of law? Hmmmmmmmm
I have already cited from the courts which this groups seems to ignore the basic facts by insisting FISA can usurp the presidents constitutional authority.

From the Deputy AG

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the attorney general.

"It is important to understand," explained the official, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."


Furthermore, said the deputy AG, the requirements for sending wiretapping requests to a special court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (known as FISA) were not objectionable, provided that the provision "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security."

And as the WSJ stated yesterday

"The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.""

"The Supreme Court has never upheld warrantless wiretapping within the United States."
And where have they ruled against what Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush did?
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
I have already cited from the courts which this groups seems to ignore the basic facts by insisting FISA can usurp the presidents constitutional authority.

From the Deputy AG

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the attorney general.

"It is important to understand," explained the official, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."


Furthermore, said the deputy AG, the requirements for sending wiretapping requests to a special court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (known as FISA) were not objectionable, provided that the provision "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security."

And as the WSJ stated yesterday

"The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.""

And where have they ruled against what Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush did?
I would never think that the Deputy AG or the Wall Street Journal would be able to outweigh the opinions of Constitutional law experts from the top law schools in the country. The authors of that letter went into detail about the president's constitutional power and how it relates to warrantless searches. What this tells me is that you don't understand the true legal issues involved and how the balance of powers work. That's cool. :cool:
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
I have no idea and, frankly, I don't care. Using the excuse that other presidents have done it (which I doubt is the case) is a pretty pathetic defense.

Just as I suspected--it's a republican talking point. Yawn.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/

OMG your screaming liberal web blog says its untrue... well then it completely must be false.... YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml
Guess 60 minutes was wrong

The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543318/posts
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
KCConservative said:
:2wave: Nice job, Chaos.

Uh, aps, I believe it's your turn.
Okay, I did a search on google of "Echelon wiretapping." NO reputable website or news media came up, which includes the ones Calm cited. Do you know what this tells me? That whatever story is being dished out on this subject is a bunch of BS.

As for the 60 minutes quote:

The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."
Where does it say that Clinton did NOT obtain a warrant? I read the entire newsmax article, and I don't see where it says that at all. The issue isn't about wiretapping--it's wiretapping without a warrant.

Regardless, I meant it when I said I don't care about that particular situation. One, it's old news, and two, it's not credible, in my opinion.

I'm still waiting for someone to debunk the letter from the 14 legal experts on how Bush abused his executive power.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Google 'echelon+nsa' and you'll get over 400,000 hits, including this one:

Newsmax...

But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order [emphasis added], let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."
NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.

The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Google 'echelon+nsa' and you'll get over 400,000 hits, including this one:

Newsmax...
You're cute, oldreliable. :) What's bugging me is that I can't find a reputable news outlet that states that wiretapping was done without a court order. NONE. I don't trust newsmax at all, particularly when I don't see anything reputable corroborating such story.

Wikipedia states the following:

Before the September 11, 2001 attacks and the legislation which followed it, US intelligence agencies were generally prohibited from spying on people inside the US and other western countries' intelligence services generally faced similar restrictions within their own countries. There are allegations, however, that ECHELON and the UKUSA alliance were used to circumvent these restrictions by, for example, having the UK facilities spy on people inside the US and the US facilites spy on people in the UK, with the agencies exchanging data (perhaps even automatically through the ECHELON system without human intervention).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
Speculation. If Clinton abused his powers as well, then he should face any consequences (assuming there are any) for the abuse. I believe if this had been a wide practice by other presidents, it would have come up somewhere in that letter from the 14 legal scholars. Something doesn't add up in the allegations that other presidents did it too.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What, you don't believe 60 Minutes? The whole transcript is really interesting. Especially the last paragraph:

KROFT: Accountability isn't the only issue that's of interest to Congress. There is growing concern within the intelligence community that encryption and the worldwide move to fiber-optic cables, which Echelon may not be able to penetrate, will erode the NSA's ability to gather the intelligence vital to national security. The agency is looking for more money to develop new technologies.
 
Top Bottom