• 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.

Sign a petition to make them reveal the

mesue

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have just signed the request through the Freedom of Information Act request to make them reveal more about this surveilance without consent of the courts. (See second link) I for one feel we have a right to know more about this.
Also one might want to take a look at this, it is a poll at msnbc.com asking if Bush should be impeached, it says its a live poll, if you want to vote, do so now. Out of 153288 responses 85% think he should be impeached.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904




http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/domesticspying/fdgdqg
George Bush is using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any court. After initially refusing to confirm the story, the President has admitted to personally overseeing this domestic spying program for years.

These actions are explicitly against the law. But the administration says that other laws somehow allow for this unprecedented use of a foreign intelligence agency to spy on Americans right here in the United States. According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.

Governor Howard Dean is filing a formal demand that they release these documents. You can add your name to a Freedom of Information Act request by providing the information below.

http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/domesticspying/fdgdqg
 

mesue

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Are you guys that afraid to put your name on a petition?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
mesue said:
Are you guys that afraid to put your name on a petition?
I have no problem as long as everyone in the country promises not to tell any terrorist what we find out.
 

mesue

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The surveillance is being done illegally, the law has been in place since the 70's that you can't spy on Amerocans without going through a special court for a court order that special court was setup to protect our rights but also to maintain secrecy, Bush broke those laws, it is as simple as that and yes we all have a right to know how many Americans that were illegally surveilled.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
mesue said:
Are you guys that afraid to put your name on a petition?
Yes and no, if I do, the govt. will probably start spying upon me, if they haven't already:lol: But also I doubt a petition will get the govt. to do anything, since when have they ever listened to anyone but bureaucrats and their party-line? But I would sure like the program ended. Also I fo think it is illegal, or should be.
 
Last edited:

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
mesue said:
The surveillance is being done illegally, .
No it's not.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
No it's not.
If not, it should be.

I found this rather interesting:

"Powers given to the President during times of National Emergency by the US Consitution:

"...on extraordinary occasions, [the president may] convene both Houses, or either of them..."

U.S. Constitution, Art. II, § 3

Powers that President's have amassed since 1776:

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.

US Senate Report 93-549, September 1976 "

And no for any righties, who respond saying we are in time of need, we are not, most historians say that in this era is not a challenging one, these "terrorists" aren't really a threat.
 
Last edited:

mesue

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
No it's not.
Yes it is illegal, a law in the 70's made it illegal for any government agency to do domestic spying on US citizens without a warrant, but if it was neccessary all they had to do was go through the FISA court to get a warrant this court is very secretive so that would allow the government to go about its business without the person being surveilled knowing anything about it.

What it might actually boil down to is that every conversation or email is being surveilled depending if such words are used so that it is impossible to get a warrant on an entire population.

Like for instance If I called you up and told you something I saw on the news and used the key words they are mining for in our conversation, it would be impossible to get a warrant to eavesdrop on that conversation based on this type of snooping because in legal terms they were supposed to have the warrant already to have listened to the conversation. (pure speculation on my part BTW).

Here is an excerpt from an interview with an ex- NSA agent who has written to Congress and also has offered to testify before Congress. Go to the website to read or watch the entire interview.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/03/1435201

During the 1960s and 1970s, the military used N.S.A. intercepts to maintain files on U.S. peace activists. It was this domestic surveillance that led Congress to intervene and pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, in order to prevent future such abuses. The statute permits domestic intelligence surveillance with the approval of a court order from the FISA court.

AMY GOODMAN: President Bush. Russell Tice, you’re with the National Security Agency, or you were until May 2005. If al-Qaeda's calling, the U.S. government wants to know. Your response?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, that's probably a good thing to know. But that's why we have a FISA court and FISA laws. The FISA court – it’s not very difficult to get something through a FISA court. I kinda liken the FISA court to a monkey with a rubber stamp. The monkey sees a name, the monkey sees a word justification with a block of information. It can't read the block, but it just stamps “affirmed” on the block, and a banana chip rolls out, and then the next paper rolls in front of the monkey. When you have like 20,000 requests and only, I think, four were turned down, you can't look at the FISA court as anything different.

So, you have to ask yourself the question: Why would someone want to go around the FISA court in something like this? I would think the answer could be that this thing is a lot bigger than even the President has been told it is, and that ultimately a vacuum cleaner approach may have been used, in which case you don't get names, and that's ultimately why you wouldn't go to the FISA court. And I think that’s something Congress needs to address. They need to find out exactly how this system was operated and ultimately determine whether this was indeed a very focused effort or whether this was a vacuum cleaner-type scenario.

AMY GOODMAN: Did you support the President, Russell Tice? Did you vote for President Bush?

RUSSELL TICE: I am a Republican. I voted for President Bush both in the last election and the first election where he was up for president. I’ve contributed to his campaign. I get a post -- I mean, a Christmas card from the White House every year, I guess, because of my nominal contributions. But – so, you know, it’s not like, you know -- I think you’re going to find a lot of folks that are in the Department of Defense and the intelligence community are apt to be on the conservative side of the fence. But nonetheless, we're all taught that you don't do something like this. And I’m certainly hoping that the President has been misled in what’s going on here and that the true crux of this problem is in the leadership of the intelligence community.

AMY GOODMAN: You're saying in the leadership of your own agency, the National Security Agency?

RUSSELL TICE: That's correct, yeah, because certainly General Alexander and General Hayden and Bill Black knew that this was illegal.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Comrade Brian said:
And no for any righties, who respond saying we are in time of need, we are not, most historians say that in this era is not a challenging one, these "terrorists" aren't really a threat.
Yes we are and any historian who says otherwise is an idiot.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
mesue said:
Yes it is illegal, a law in the 70's made it illegal for any government agency to do domestic spying on US citizens without a warrant, but if it was neccessary all they had to do was go through the FISA court to get a warrant this court is very secretive so that would allow the government to go about its business without the person being surveilled knowing anything about it.
No it's not and FISA did not usurp the constitutional authority of the President. The court cases and even the FISA ruling itself has been posted here over and over. Congress CANNOT leglislate away Presidential authority.


"The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.

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.""

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
Yes we are and any historian who says otherwise is an idiot.
I have yet to see how these "terrorists" are a major threat. Especially when most are being fought and killed in other countries, and actually fuels them, as because many see the US as an imperialist invader that kills their people, so in fact much of this "anti-terrorism" fuels. And also that 9/11 was actually only a small amount of people compared to many other things.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Comrade Brian said:
I have yet to see how these "terrorists" are a major threat.
Then you missed the WTT falling, you missed the postal workers killed by anthrax, you missed the sailors on the Cole being crushed between the two decks.

Where have you been?


Especially when most are being fought and killed in other countries,
Yes good strategy on our part to keep them occupied over there.

and actually fuels them,
They were fueled enought already.

as because many see the US as an imperialist invader that kills their people,
They see the US as the one people's who can stop THEIR imperialisn and and the one people who are bringing freedom and liberty to the rightful citizens of those country's. How can you honestly say that it would be better for the terrorist to win in Iraq or Afghanistan instead of the US?

We haven't been attacked since we finally had a president who had the will to take the fight to them.
 

mesue

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
No it's not and FISA did not usurp the constitutional authority of the President. The court cases and even the FISA ruling itself has been posted here over and over. Congress CANNOT leglislate away Presidential authority.


"The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.

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.""

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703
In my opinion according to what I am reading it is illegal. I think the issue of legality is going to be argued by many and hopefully there will be hearings on this soon.
The president also takes an oath to uphold the constitution upon taking office. While he may have exeutive power this does not mean he can break laws at will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_President#Powers
The President, according to the Constitution, must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”


FISA does require a warrant for eavesdropping on US citizens but it does also provide for the government to do so in emergency situations without a warrant, but if they do this, there are steps to be made, one of those steps are that the Attorney General must notify the FISA court within 72 hrs and then also obtain a warrant within those same 72 hrs. I have not seen where anyone in the Bush Administration are saying they followed through with these procedures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 

mesue

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Also Stinger you might want to take a look at this, it basically is talking about your argument, the same one of course used by the Bush Administration. It would seem there has been some research done by Congress and they are saying this argument is weak and that Bush has overstepped his power.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10741787/
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
In my opinion according to what I am reading it is illegal.
And the opinion of the courts including the FISA court itself is quite clear.

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.""

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110007703
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
mesue said:
Also Stinger you might want to take a look at this, it basically is talking about your argument, the same one of course used by the Bush Administration. It would seem there has been some research done by Congress and they are saying this argument is weak and that Bush has overstepped his power.
I think the courts have clearly spoken in the matter and it's the congress that is overstepping it's bounds. Congress has been kept informed of this even before Bush was sworn in, they never raised a peep until this power grab. I have cited the courts, the only thing I see cited in rebut are these weak "maybe's" by some in congress and as the article you cited says

"Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the president and the administration believe the program is on firm legal footing. "The national security activities described by the president were conducted in accord with the law and provide a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time," he said. A spokesman for the National Security Agency was not available for a comment yesterday. Other administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the CRS reached some erroneous legal conclusions, erring on the side of a narrow interpretation of what constitutes military force and when the president can exercise his war powers."


It can't be much clearer than this


"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.""

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110007703
 

mesue

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As I have already said you and I will not be able to agree on this. You might want to write to these people (analysts that work for the congress) about this ruling since the investigative team that works for Congress must have not found it, or did not consider it important enough to take into consideration. They are saying Bush's case for having the right to order wiretaps without a warrant on US citizens is based on a weak legal argument and conflicts with existing laws.

While I see the point of your argument and the court case you provided the FISA court does take into consideration the need to eavesdrop in an emergency situation on a US citizen and does provide the Attorney General the 72 hr leeway to eavesdrop without a warrant and to proceed due process to get such warrant. If the Bush administration had done this, there would be no problem. So no matter what side you are on concerning this issue one must ask why did they not just do it this way?

The thing is we live in a country that has laws and while I understand that sometimes these laws need to be updated due to technology or to embrace the progress of time the fundamental right set forth by these laws must be maintained and obviously the FISA court did take into consideration that a case could arise in which a US citizen receiving calls from foreign nations might become part of a case that would be neccessary to proceed with surveillance; and as such a case might exist the FISA court provided for it by creating the 72 hr lapse before a warrant was obtained this is why the 72 hr. leeway was provided by the court.

I tried to find info on this case you keep citing but I could not short of the one paragraph you provided. Is this case involving a wiretap that involved a US citizen or non US citizens? Here is what I did find, enjoy (gov. website I saved it, to look up stuff later) this it is a long read (I'm going blind from reading all this stuff so get out the visine) btw it is the congressional record on amending FISA in May of 2003.

As I said before you and I will have to agree to disagree until this is all ironed out by the legal folks. If Bush wins this one, our rights will just continue to disintegrate until eventually we live in a country where the citizens rights are non existant. JMO And it is really not going to matter then who is right or who is wrong, who is a conservative or liberal, democrat or republican, there will be one rule which is do as you are told with no legal recourse. Anyway that is the way I see things evolving if they continue on as they have.
(excerpt)

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s050803.html
There has been a worry on the part of some that this expands the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to private American citizens. I make it crystal clear that is not true.
By definition, we could not do that. This is a law that is only
justified because it relates to international terrorism. So if you come
here from a foreign country, you are a non-U.S. person, you come from a
foreign country, intending to do harm to Americans, as part of this
international movement, whether you are a member of some specific
organization or not, the act will be allowed to be used to determine
whether we should take further action against you. It is not pertaining
to U.S. citizens; it is only to non-U.S. citizens and only in this
particular context.
Second, you cannot just do this willy-nilly, like every other
warrant. Whether under FISA or not, we have to have probable cause.
That requirement is not changed one iota. If anyone suggests there is
anything improper, certainly it is not unconstitutional, but to the
extent anyone suggests that we are ready to recite the reasons why,
that is not true.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
mesue said:
As I have already said you and I will not be able to agree on this. You might want to write to these people (analysts that work for the congress) about this ruling since the investigative team that works for Congress must have not found it, or did not consider it important enough to take into consideration. They are saying Bush's case for having the right to order wiretaps without a warrant on US citizens is based on a weak legal argument and conflicts with existing laws.
He has not ordered wiretaps on US citizens, these are comminications intercepted outside the US which may lead into the US. But he has NOT order NAS to tap the phones of US citizens in this country without a warrant. That is the myth the media and the Democrats are trying to turn this into by mistrepresenting the facts.

So no matter what side you are on concerning this issue one must ask why did they not just do it this way?
Because they don't have to. The FISA court cannot usurp his authority to direct NAS to do what it is doing.

The thing is we live in a country that has laws and while I understand that sometimes these laws need to be updated due to technology or to embrace the progress of time the fundamental right set forth by these laws must be maintained and obviously the FISA court did take into consideration that a case could arise in which a US citizen receiving calls from foreign nations might become part of a case that would be neccessary to proceed with surveillance; and as such a case might exist the FISA court provided for it by creating the 72 hr lapse before a warrant was obtained this is why the 72 hr. leeway was provided by the court.
Did you know that during the cold war we tapped into the communications cables of the old Soviet Union? And in monitoring those calls some of them came into the United States. No court order was required, no warrant was required and it was a very valuable intelligence gathering program. As I have already cited the congress cannot intercede in this, it is beyond thier constitutional realm, they cannot legislate away the power of the President. They can try by amending the constituion which will never happen.

As I said before you and I will have to agree to disagree until this is all ironed out by the legal folks. If Bush wins this one, our rights will just continue to disintegrate until eventually we live in a country where the citizens rights are non existant.
Where do you get this stuff? You're only worry is if you contact suspected terrorist ins foreign countries or they are contacting you. And in both cases I don't find it unreasonable to assume you are going to be monitored.

JMO And it is really not going to matter then who is right or who is wrong, who is a conservative or liberal, democrat or republican, there will be one rule which is do as you are told with no legal recourse. Anyway that is the way I see things evolving if they continue on as they have.
It does matter who is right or wrong because these types of phoney issues interfer with our fight against those who would kill us.
 

mesue

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Where am I getting this stuff? I am assuming you mean about Bush ordering wiretaps on US citizens without a warrant. Notice the words domestic surveillance.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-wh/2006/jan/02/010200633.html
The New York Times disclosed last month that the NSA had been conducting the domestic surveillance since 2002. The Justice Department on Friday opened an investigation into who told reporters about the program
 

FreeThinker

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
1,001
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
mesue said:
The surveillance is being done illegally, the law has been in place since the 70's that you can't spy on Amerocans without going through a special court for a court order that special court was setup to protect our rights but also to maintain secrecy, Bush broke those laws, it is as simple as that and yes we all have a right to know how many Americans that were illegally surveilled.
The program has been in place for a few years now, and democrats like Kennedy were briefed. If they had a problem with it they could have brought it up when they first heard about it.

The fact that it is being brought to the public eye now years after demcrats knew about it reeks of partisan politics.

And no, Bush will not be impeached for this. He will carry out the rest of his presidency honorably, without the stain of sex and finance scandals that plagued that joke of a president Clinton.
 

mesue

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FreeThinker said:
The program has been in place for a few years now, and democrats like Kennedy were briefed. If they had a problem with it they could have brought it up when they first heard about it.

The fact that it is being brought to the public eye now years after demcrats knew about it reeks of partisan politics.

And no, Bush will not be impeached for this. He will carry out the rest of his presidency honorably, without the stain of sex and finance scandals that plagued that joke of a president Clinton.
Apparently you are not aware that this came to the reporter through whistle blowers that were involved working in the program, none of them being politicians. That is why it is being brought to the public's attention and has nothing to do with partisan politics.

If you want to talk about financial scandals I suggest you take a look at Halliburton, how many government contracts they have gotten because no one else was allowed to bid at all and wonder why with all that money they still fed our military in Iraq, meals that were marked out of date? Why 80% of our dead military might have survived if they would've had adequate body armor that was not provided?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
mesue said:
Where am I getting this stuff? I am assuming you mean about Bush ordering wiretaps on US citizens without a warrant. Notice the words domestic surveillance.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-wh/2006/jan/02/010200633.html
The New York Times disclosed last month that the NSA had been conducting the domestic surveillance since 2002. The Justice Department on Friday opened an investigation into who told reporters about the program
If you think that because the NYT frames it that way makes it so I got a bridge to sell you. Detail the instances of purely domestic surveillance you claim broke the law and especailly the ones which you claim the adminsitration KNEW it was breaking a law. And name a US citizen whom Bush directly ordered an illegal wiretap against.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
mesue said:
Apparently you are not aware that this came to the reporter through whistle blowers that were involved working in the program, none of them being politicians.
One who had been fired previously for "physcological probems" and at best has only said he "thinks" it was wrong. Well the courts have said otherwise, over and over.

This guy is not a whistleblower, only certain people are legally classified as whistleblowers and there are specific proceedures they must go through to gain such status. So far he seems a disgruntled former employee who has found a sympathetic report who has printed a story consisting of maybes, and might be's and baseless charges. This guy should be indicted and brought to court.
 

mesue

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I heard the reporter who wrote the story say there were a number of whistleblowers not just one who came to him about the problem. So to attack Tice because he is the only one named so far is really pointless since there are others. Also have you not noticed that the Bush Administration has not denied any of this? They have defended their actions by claiming it to be legal but not once have they said they did not spy on American citizens without a warrant? Why is that?


http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7976.shtml

President Bush's decision to authorize the NSA to monitor _ without warrants _ people inside the United States has sparked a flurry of questions about the program's legal justification.

Bush and his top aides say the activities of the nation's largest spy agency were narrowly targeted to intercept calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.

But a growing chorus of legal experts from both parties are raising doubts about Bush's authority to order such monitoring on U.S. soil and questioning whether the White House should have sought changes in law.

Congress also plans to investigate. As part of its work, the House and Senate intelligence committees will soon hear from former NSA officer Russell T. Tice. The whistleblower told lawmakers in Dec. 16 letter that he had information about "probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts" involving the NSA director, the defense secretary and other officials as part of highly classified government operations.

ABC News reported Tuesday night that Tice claims to be one of the dozen sources who spoke to The New York Times about monitoring programs. The newspaper declined to comment, spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/11/1436222

NSA Extensively Spied on Baltimore Peace Group
This news on the Bush administration’s domestic spy program – the website RawStory.com has obtained government documents showing the National Security Agency spied on the Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore, a Quaker-linked peace group. The documents indicate the group was extensively monitored, with detailed records of their travel movements, driving routes -- and even the helium balloons they used in a protest. On one day, the group’s movements were reported every 15 minutes. And at a protest during "Keep Space for Peace Week”, the NSA planned to conduct ariel surveillance and have a Weapons of Mass Destruction Rapid Response Team nearby.

NSA Denies Whistleblower’s Demand To Testify Before Congress
Meanwhile, ABC News is reporting the National Security Agency has denied the request of whistleblower Russell Tice to testify before Congress. Tice, a former intelligence agent at the NSA and Defense Intelligence Agency who has spoken out against the domestic spy program, was told he is not free to testify because staff members on Capitol Hill do not have high enough security clearance to hear the secrets he has to tell. Tice first spoke out on record on Democracy Now last week.

House Democrats To Hold Informal Hearing on Spy Program
And House Democrats have scheduled an informal hearing on the NSA spy program. Michigan Congressmember John Conyers announced Tuesday the hearing will be held on January 20th. Conyers, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said House Republicans had ignored calls for a formal hearing.

Harvard’s Tribe: Bush Administration’s NSA Legal Argument “Poppycock”
In making the announcement, Conyers also released a letter from prominent Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe. Commenting on the Bush administration’s argument its program was legally sound, Tribe writes: "The technical legal term for that, I believe, is poppycock."
 
Top Bottom