Poll: spying needs approval

[aps]

What, you don't believe 60 Minutes? The whole transcript is really interesting. Especially the last paragraph:

I just read through the transcript. Where does it say that the wiretapping was done without a warrant, a court order?

 

[oldreliable67]

I just read through the transcript. Where does it say that the wiretapping was done without a warrant, a court order?

Do you really think that they would go and get a court order for the activities they describe in the transcript? Listening in on Strom Thurmond, or Princess Diana?

From a practical point of view, think of the huge mass of communications traffic being intercepted. There is simply no physical way to get a court order for all that stuff. Hence, then Rep. Goss' insistence on 'post-accumulation' safeguards and 'minimization' techniques.

 

[aps]

Do you really think that they would go and get a court order for the activities they describe in the transcript? Listening in on Strom Thurmond, or Princess Diana?

From a practical point of view, think of the huge mass of communications traffic being intercepted. There is simply no physical way to get a court order for all that stuff. Hence, then Rep. Goss' insistence on 'post-accumulation' safeguards and 'minimization' techniques.

Then let's amend the FISA requirements to provide for warrantless surveillances.

 

[stsburns]

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?

If it were tried in any court it would just be "He said, she said?" Because it is the professors word against "the Bushies." Me personally knowing college professors, I don't think there going to leave their high paying jobs to go run Checks and Balances against the US Government.

 

[aps]

If it were tried in any court it would just be "He said, she said?" Because it is the professors word against "the Bushies." Me personally knowing college professors, I don't think there going to leave their high paying jobs to go run Checks and Balances against the US Government.

LMAO! That is the best you can come up with? :lamo

 

[Calm2Chaos]

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:



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.

You don't trust NewsMax, yet you'll throw out a liberal web blog as proof...That seems a lil odd...

 

[aps]

You don't trust NewsMax, yet you'll throw out a liberal web blog as proof...That seems a lil odd...

My point was not to specifically refute what the reputable (NOT) NewsMax reported, but to show that there are different sides to the story. Just like you won't take a liberal blog as being proof that there weren't warrantless wiretaps, I won't take a story in NewsMax as being proof that there were warrantless wiretaps. If I saw such story in the Washington Post, New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, then I would give the story more credence.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

My point was not to specifically refute what the reputable (NOT) NewsMax reported, but to show that there are different sides to the story. Just like you won't take a liberal blog as being proof that there weren't warrantless wiretaps, I won't take a story in NewsMax as being proof that there were warrantless wiretaps. If I saw such story in the Washington Post, New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, then I would give the story more credence.

I understand there are 2 sides to every story. Hell if there weren't this place would be pretty friggin dull. I think you need to filter a lot of information through various sorces. I also think you need to take into account certain biases that occur. There is IMO definetly a major media bias.

The line in the newsmax article that caught my eye was the quote

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."


No your right it does not specifically say without a warrant. But through common sense I am going to assume that there were not half a billion warrants given out. If this is true, then what this correspondent from a reputable new source is saying is that these taps in the clinton era were on American citizens and were not covered by warrants of any sort.

 

[aps]

I understand there are 2 sides to every story. Hell if there weren't this place would be pretty friggin dull. I think you need to filter a lot of information through various sorces. I also think you need to take into account certain biases that occur. There is IMO definetly a major media bias.

The line in the newsmax article that caught my eye was the quote

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."


No your right it does not specifically say without a warrant. But through common sense I am going to assume that there were not half a billion warrants given out. If this is true, then what this correspondent from a reputable new source is saying is that these taps in the clinton era were on American citizens and were not covered by warrants of any sort.

Wow, Calm, what a great post. I totally agree with what you have said, including weighing various sources and that the wording you quote above would imply that warrants were not obtained. Let me commend you for making your point so well. :bravo:

I kinda like you now.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Wow, Calm, what a great post. I totally agree with what you have said, including weighing various sources and that the wording you quote above would imply that warrants were not obtained. Let me commend you for making your point so well. :bravo:

I kinda like you now.

:blushing:

Awwww Schuckssss

 

[stsburns]

LMAO! That is the best you can come up with? :lamo

So do I NEED "YOUR" approval to spy on you? Or should I just do it for kicks? /sarcasm

Or how about everyone that is already spying on you that is not the govenment, that dose not need your permission. Can you make up a good excuse for that one?

I've got something to hide. The government shouldn't be spying on me!

The ONLY people should be spying on me should be:
1.BonziBuddy,
2.Alexa,
3.Bill Gates,
4.Wild Tangent,
5.people with quarter sized video cameras that they bought out of exclusive electronic magazines,
6.the people sitting on their computers at "OnStar" and rental car companies, 7.people paying to take screenshots through private companies,
8.the people who turn on the record button on their answer machine when someone is talking to them over the phone,
9.the countless tracking devices on packages and expensive things in stores,
10.purverts
11.hackers
12.blackboxes in airplanes and in cars
13.people who have access to public information that is easy to get a hold of
14.security at every single store I walk into
15.stoplight cameras
16.chainmail senders
17.national treasurey
18.private detectives
19.Auditors
20.Phishers/Identity stealers

But the Government as a whole SPYING on me, HELL NO! :naughty :2rofll: /sarcasm

Welcome to America dear, It has been a pleasure seeing you on "Real TV!"

 

[stsburns]

You don't trust NewsMax, yet you'll throw out a liberal web blog as proof...That seems a lil odd...

Well she is a Liberal Democrat? It's kidda expected? You know the whole Loyal Fascist thing! :rofl

 

[Stinger]

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.

They're citing the court rulings if you think the opinion of a bunch of law professors outweight the rulings of the courts then that tells me you don't understand the true legal issues involved, what this tells me is that you don't understand that liberal constitutional professors are still liberal and if you read what they write they STILL confuse domestic intelligence with foreign intelligence.

But if you can cite from the report how it rebuts the actual court rulings and cite when they went to court and got court rulings which trump what I posted please do. Until then the court rulings stand. If the professfors want to change that then they can try to get a constitutional amendment passed.

 

[stsburns]

They're citing the court rulings if you think the opinion of a bunch of law professors outweight the rulings of the courts then that tells me you don't understand the true legal issues involved, what this tells me is that you don't understand that liberal constitutional professors are still liberal and if you read what they write they STILL confuse domestic intelligence with foreign intelligence.

But if you can cite from the report how it rebuts the actual court rulings and cite when they went to court and got court rulings which trump what I posted please do. Until then the court rulings stand. If the professfors want to change that then they can try to get a constitutional amendment passed.

Of what relivence do the courts have to do with "Corporate" or "Private Party" spying. Because all I'm seeing rules on the "The Man", "The Government", which is doing nothing more than setting up the "Loophole" that the government can't spy, but private companies and private parties can be paid to spy thru the loophole. Do you get the picture yet, or are you a visual learner, and I have to draw it for you?

 

[Stinger]

Of what relivence do the courts have to do with "Corporate" or "Private Party" spying.

This has nothing to do with that so I have no idea what relevance, we are talking about government survielence of foreign signals.

 

[stsburns]

This has nothing to do with that so I have no idea what relevance, we are talking about government survielence of foreign signals.

People Spy! Plain and simple. Some do it for their own gain, others do it for mistrust. WHAT IS WRONG WITH ONE MORE PERSON SPYING ON YOU, ESPECIALLY THE GOVERNMENT!

Tell me please!