Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gman8343

Reports: Bush Authorized NSA to Spy in U.S.

Recommended Posts

As to NCC's post, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance except as provided otherwise by statute. Congress provided otherwise by statute in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11. (edited to add: at least that is the administration's interpretation)

I hadn't heard that. So it's the administration's position that the resoluation passed by Congress gave the President the freedom to circumvent the law?

Thank you, New York Times, for aiding and abetting the enemy.

Really, you should focus your ire on the administration leaks. The Times was doing it's duty in my opinion.

I've heard that expressed by Gonzalez (Fox and Friends, Monday morning). Specifically (this from a blog):

We believe that the president has the inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution to engage in signals intelligence of our enemy, against al Qaeda, but we also believe the president has statutory authority.... (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance … except as provided otherwise by statute. And we believe that Congress has ‘provided otherwise by statute’ in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11.

My personal POV is that anything entering or leaving the country does not have 4th Amendment protection. If I enter or leave the country, I am subject to search (and potential siezure if I'm bringing in something illegal or not declaring stuff). So is my mail. Extending this to emails and phone calls doesn't seem that big a deal to me.

As to focussing my ire, NYT exposed an intelligence operation. That would lead our enemies to change tactics, thus leading to loss of intelligence capability, which in turn makes us less safe.

I do think the people who leaked this story need to see some punitive action, but at some point "responsible journalism" has to become something more than an oxymoron. Compromising wartime intelligence gathering, especially when that gathering appears to be legal is not repsonsible journalism. In fact there mnay be another word for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still haven't explained how the NYT story is harmful to the country's counter terrorism efforts.

Good night.

Apparently because it exposed counter-terrorism efforts that were proving effective. Once exposed, it would makes sense they would lose effectiveness.

From the original poster:

Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al-Qaida by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to NCC's post, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance except as provided otherwise by statute. Congress provided otherwise by statute in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11. (edited to add: at least that is the administration's interpretation)

I hadn't heard that. So it's the administration's position that the resoluation passed by Congress gave the President the freedom to circumvent the law?

Thank you, New York Times, for aiding and abetting the enemy.

Really, you should focus your ire on the administration leaks. The Times was doing it's duty in my opinion.

I've heard that expressed by Gonzalez (Fox and Friends, Monday morning). Specifically (this from a blog):

We believe that the president has the inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution to engage in signals intelligence of our enemy, against al Qaeda, but we also believe the president has statutory authority.... (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance … except as provided otherwise by statute. And we believe that Congress has ‘provided otherwise by statute’ in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11.

My personal POV is that anything entering or leaving the country does not have 4th Amendment protection. If I enter or leave the country, I am subject to search (and potential siezure if I'm bringing in something illegal or not declaring stuff). So is my mail. Extending this to emails and phone calls doesn't seem that big a deal to me.

As to focussing my ire, NYT exposed an intelligence operation. That would lead our enemies to change tactics, thus leading to loss of intelligence capability, which in turn makes us less safe.

I do think the people who leaked this story need to see some punitive action, but at some point "responsible journalism" has to become something more than an oxymoron. Compromising wartime intelligence gathering, especially when that gathering appears to be legal is not repsonsible journalism. In fact there mnay be another word for it.

Why would the NYT article lead to terrorists changing their tactics?

You've conveniently ignored this question. I suspect it's because you don't have an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to NCC's post, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance except as provided otherwise by statute. Congress provided otherwise by statute in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11. (edited to add: at least that is the administration's interpretation)

I hadn't heard that. So it's the administration's position that the resoluation passed by Congress gave the President the freedom to circumvent the law?

Thank you, New York Times, for aiding and abetting the enemy.

Really, you should focus your ire on the administration leaks. The Times was doing it's duty in my opinion.

I've heard that expressed by Gonzalez (Fox and Friends, Monday morning). Specifically (this from a blog):

We believe that the president has the inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution to engage in signals intelligence of our enemy, against al Qaeda, but we also believe the president has statutory authority.... (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance … except as provided otherwise by statute. And we believe that Congress has ‘provided otherwise by statute’ in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11.

My personal POV is that anything entering or leaving the country does not have 4th Amendment protection. If I enter or leave the country, I am subject to search (and potential siezure if I'm bringing in something illegal or not declaring stuff). So is my mail. Extending this to emails and phone calls doesn't seem that big a deal to me.

As to focussing my ire, NYT exposed an intelligence operation. That would lead our enemies to change tactics, thus leading to loss of intelligence capability, which in turn makes us less safe.

I do think the people who leaked this story need to see some punitive action, but at some point "responsible journalism" has to become something more than an oxymoron. Compromising wartime intelligence gathering, especially when that gathering appears to be legal is not repsonsible journalism. In fact there mnay be another word for it.

Why would the NYT article lead to terrorists changing their tactics?

You've conveniently ignored this question. I suspect it's because you don't have an answer.

Because they are alerted to the fact that we were doing what we were doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still haven't explained how the NYT story is harmful to the country's counter terrorism efforts.

Good night.

Apparently because it exposed counter-terrorism efforts that were proving effective. Once exposed, it would makes sense they would lose effectiveness.

From the original poster:

Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al-Qaida by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.

The ability to conduct surveillance on American citizens already existed. The president's program just circumvented the warrant process. How would that have changed the outcome of the case the government cites to support its own actions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to NCC's post, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance except as provided otherwise by statute. Congress provided otherwise by statute in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11. (edited to add: at least that is the administration's interpretation)

I hadn't heard that. So it's the administration's position that the resoluation passed by Congress gave the President the freedom to circumvent the law?

Thank you, New York Times, for aiding and abetting the enemy.

Really, you should focus your ire on the administration leaks. The Times was doing it's duty in my opinion.

I've heard that expressed by Gonzalez (Fox and Friends, Monday morning). Specifically (this from a blog):

We believe that the president has the inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution to engage in signals intelligence of our enemy, against al Qaeda, but we also believe the president has statutory authority.... (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance … except as provided otherwise by statute. And we believe that Congress has ‘provided otherwise by statute’ in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11.

My personal POV is that anything entering or leaving the country does not have 4th Amendment protection. If I enter or leave the country, I am subject to search (and potential siezure if I'm bringing in something illegal or not declaring stuff). So is my mail. Extending this to emails and phone calls doesn't seem that big a deal to me.

As to focussing my ire, NYT exposed an intelligence operation. That would lead our enemies to change tactics, thus leading to loss of intelligence capability, which in turn makes us less safe.

I do think the people who leaked this story need to see some punitive action, but at some point "responsible journalism" has to become something more than an oxymoron. Compromising wartime intelligence gathering, especially when that gathering appears to be legal is not repsonsible journalism. In fact there mnay be another word for it.

Why would the NYT article lead to terrorists changing their tactics?

You've conveniently ignored this question. I suspect it's because you don't have an answer.

Because they are alerted to the fact that we were doing what we were doing.

That sentence means nothing. We were already able to conduct surveillance on American citizens with a warrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to NCC's post, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance except as provided otherwise by statute. Congress provided otherwise by statute in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11. (edited to add: at least that is the administration's interpretation)

I hadn't heard that. So it's the administration's position that the resoluation passed by Congress gave the President the freedom to circumvent the law?

Thank you, New York Times, for aiding and abetting the enemy.

Really, you should focus your ire on the administration leaks. The Times was doing it's duty in my opinion.

I've heard that expressed by Gonzalez (Fox and Friends, Monday morning). Specifically (this from a blog):

We believe that the president has the inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution to engage in signals intelligence of our enemy, against al Qaeda, but we also believe the president has statutory authority.... (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance … except as provided otherwise by statute. And we believe that Congress has ‘provided otherwise by statute’ in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11.

My personal POV is that anything entering or leaving the country does not have 4th Amendment protection. If I enter or leave the country, I am subject to search (and potential siezure if I'm bringing in something illegal or not declaring stuff). So is my mail. Extending this to emails and phone calls doesn't seem that big a deal to me.

As to focussing my ire, NYT exposed an intelligence operation. That would lead our enemies to change tactics, thus leading to loss of intelligence capability, which in turn makes us less safe.

I do think the people who leaked this story need to see some punitive action, but at some point "responsible journalism" has to become something more than an oxymoron. Compromising wartime intelligence gathering, especially when that gathering appears to be legal is not repsonsible journalism. In fact there mnay be another word for it.

Why would the NYT article lead to terrorists changing their tactics?

You've conveniently ignored this question. I suspect it's because you don't have an answer.

Because they are alerted to the fact that we were doing what we were doing.

That sentence means nothing. We were already able to conduct surveillance on American citizens with a warrant.

I dunno, I guess there are some dumbassess out there that don't review the constitution before sending a terrorist communication to Afghanistan. Regardless, if it worked it would be hard to ignore the simple logic that mass publication of the effort would inform even the dumbasses that fell prey to it originally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to NCC's post, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance except as provided otherwise by statute. Congress provided otherwise by statute in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11. (edited to add: at least that is the administration's interpretation)

I hadn't heard that. So it's the administration's position that the resoluation passed by Congress gave the President the freedom to circumvent the law?

Thank you, New York Times, for aiding and abetting the enemy.

Really, you should focus your ire on the administration leaks. The Times was doing it's duty in my opinion.

I've heard that expressed by Gonzalez (Fox and Friends, Monday morning). Specifically (this from a blog):

We believe that the president has the inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution to engage in signals intelligence of our enemy, against al Qaeda, but we also believe the president has statutory authority.... (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance … except as provided otherwise by statute. And we believe that Congress has ‘provided otherwise by statute’ in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11.

My personal POV is that anything entering or leaving the country does not have 4th Amendment protection. If I enter or leave the country, I am subject to search (and potential siezure if I'm bringing in something illegal or not declaring stuff). So is my mail. Extending this to emails and phone calls doesn't seem that big a deal to me.

As to focussing my ire, NYT exposed an intelligence operation. That would lead our enemies to change tactics, thus leading to loss of intelligence capability, which in turn makes us less safe.

I do think the people who leaked this story need to see some punitive action, but at some point "responsible journalism" has to become something more than an oxymoron. Compromising wartime intelligence gathering, especially when that gathering appears to be legal is not repsonsible journalism. In fact there mnay be another word for it.

Why would the NYT article lead to terrorists changing their tactics?

You've conveniently ignored this question. I suspect it's because you don't have an answer.

Because they are alerted to the fact that we were doing what we were doing.

That sentence means nothing. We were already able to conduct surveillance on American citizens with a warrant.

Which is why A-Q changed ISP and phone numbers often. So we were monitoring them with warrants in order to get information before they changed that stuff. Now that they know we had a faster lead time, they'll change strategy and we will have lost an edge.

I can't believe you're being obtuse on that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I find very telling about this is the lack of republicans rallying around and voicing support for the administration on this one. Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate's Judiciary Committee, has ordered an investigation into the matter and has said "There is no doubt that this is inappropriate." This may be why Specter feels that way:

Past rulings don't support Bush's use of war powersBy Charlie Savage, Globe Staff  |  December 19, 2005WASHINGTON -- President Bush's assertion that his powers as commander in chief allowed him to authorize wiretaps on Americans despite a 1978 wiretapping law has little support in past Supreme Court rulings.Congress enacted the law requiring investigators to seek judicial warrants before wiretapping citizens in response to revelations that former President Richard Nixon had used the FBI to spy on his political enemies.Bush and his defenders have countered that the law does not apply to him.Under the Constitution, they say, the president has the power to take necessary actions to protect national security.''The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th . . . is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities," Bush said in his weekly radio address on Saturday.But past Supreme Court rulings have taken a more limited view of presidential power in wartime.''The president is taking an unusually expansive view of what the Constitution allows him to do in disregard of Congress, and he is probably wrong," said Susan Low Bloch, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University. ''His claim of power is too extreme."The court laid out the limits of presidential power during wartime in a 1952 case stemming from former President Harry Truman's decision to seize a steel mill in order to avert a strike at the plant.Fearing that a shortage of steel would hamper the Korean War effort, Truman decided to stop the strike. Although Congress had empowered him to keep the mill running by imposing a ''cooling off" period in labor negotiations, Truman chose to take more drastic action. Truman declared that the government would take control of the mill to ensure a steady supply of steel. But the court rejected Truman's claim that his powers as commander in chief allowed him to go beyond the will of Congress.''When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb," wrote Justice Robert Jackson in a much-cited concurring opinion.In his address Saturday, Bush sought to justify his actions in part by noting that Congress had authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.''To fight the war on terror, I am using authority vested in me by Congress, including the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, which passed overwhelmingly in the first week after September the 11th," Bush said. ''I'm also using constitutional authority vested in me as commander in chief."Still, the court has already decided that Bush's powers as commander in chief do not supersede other legal protections.In a 2004 case, Bush cited both his authority as commander in chief and the congressional authorization to support his claim that US citizens could be imprisoned without a trial if they were suspected to be part of a terrorist network. But the court rejected Bush's assertion, ruling that the detainees were entitled to a fair hearing.''A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Edited to add Boston Globe link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to NCC's post, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance except as provided otherwise by statute. Congress provided otherwise by statute in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11. (edited to add: at least that is the administration's interpretation)

I hadn't heard that. So it's the administration's position that the resoluation passed by Congress gave the President the freedom to circumvent the law?

Thank you, New York Times, for aiding and abetting the enemy.

Really, you should focus your ire on the administration leaks. The Times was doing it's duty in my opinion.

I've heard that expressed by Gonzalez (Fox and Friends, Monday morning). Specifically (this from a blog):

We believe that the president has the inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution to engage in signals intelligence of our enemy, against al Qaeda, but we also believe the president has statutory authority.... (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance … except as provided otherwise by statute. And we believe that Congress has ‘provided otherwise by statute’ in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11.

My personal POV is that anything entering or leaving the country does not have 4th Amendment protection. If I enter or leave the country, I am subject to search (and potential siezure if I'm bringing in something illegal or not declaring stuff). So is my mail. Extending this to emails and phone calls doesn't seem that big a deal to me.

As to focussing my ire, NYT exposed an intelligence operation. That would lead our enemies to change tactics, thus leading to loss of intelligence capability, which in turn makes us less safe.

I do think the people who leaked this story need to see some punitive action, but at some point "responsible journalism" has to become something more than an oxymoron. Compromising wartime intelligence gathering, especially when that gathering appears to be legal is not repsonsible journalism. In fact there mnay be another word for it.

Why would the NYT article lead to terrorists changing their tactics?

You've conveniently ignored this question. I suspect it's because you don't have an answer.

Because they are alerted to the fact that we were doing what we were doing.

That sentence means nothing. We were already able to conduct surveillance on American citizens with a warrant.

Which is why A-Q changed ISP and phone numbers often. So we were monitoring them with warrants in order to get information before they changed that stuff. Now that they know we had a faster lead time, they'll change strategy and we will have lost an edge.

I can't believe you're being obtuse on that point.

But according to the law, the wiretaps could be started BEFORE a warrant is secured. Your timeliness argument doesn't fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bueno, Can you please explain to me why the NSA or the Bush Administration didn't go back within 72 hours and retroactively get warrants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to NCC's post, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance except as provided otherwise by statute. Congress provided otherwise by statute in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11. (edited to add: at least that is the administration's interpretation)

I hadn't heard that. So it's the administration's position that the resoluation passed by Congress gave the President the freedom to circumvent the law?

Thank you, New York Times, for aiding and abetting the enemy.

Really, you should focus your ire on the administration leaks. The Times was doing it's duty in my opinion.

I've heard that expressed by Gonzalez (Fox and Friends, Monday morning). Specifically (this from a blog):

We believe that the president has the inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution to engage in signals intelligence of our enemy, against al Qaeda, but we also believe the president has statutory authority.... (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance … except as provided otherwise by statute. And we believe that Congress has ‘provided otherwise by statute’ in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11.

My personal POV is that anything entering or leaving the country does not have 4th Amendment protection. If I enter or leave the country, I am subject to search (and potential siezure if I'm bringing in something illegal or not declaring stuff). So is my mail. Extending this to emails and phone calls doesn't seem that big a deal to me.

As to focussing my ire, NYT exposed an intelligence operation. That would lead our enemies to change tactics, thus leading to loss of intelligence capability, which in turn makes us less safe.

I do think the people who leaked this story need to see some punitive action, but at some point "responsible journalism" has to become something more than an oxymoron. Compromising wartime intelligence gathering, especially when that gathering appears to be legal is not repsonsible journalism. In fact there mnay be another word for it.

If we're passing along blog info...

From defensetech.org:

A few current and former signals intelligence guys have been checking in since this NSA domestic spying story broke. Their reactions range between midly creeped out and completely pissed off.

All of the sigint specialists emphasized repeatedly that keeping tabs on Americans is way beyond the bounds of what they ordinarily do -- no matter what the conspiracy crowd may think.

"It's drilled into you from minute one that you should not ever, ever, ever, under any ####### circumstances turn this massive apparatus on an American citizen," one source says. "You do a lot of weird ####. But at least you don't #### with your own people."

Another, who's generally very pro-Administration, emphasized that the operation at least started with people that had Al-Qaeda connections -- with some mass-spying master list. As the Times, in its original story, noted:

The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, they said....In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said....Since 2002, the agency has been conducting some warrantless eavesdropping on people in the United States who are linked, even if indirectly, to suspected terrorists through the chain of phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

But this call chain could very well have grown out of control, the source admits. Suddenly, people ten and twelve degrees of separation away from Osama may have been targeted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bueno,

Can you please explain to me why the NSA or the Bush Administration didn't go back within 72 hours and retroactively get warrants?

Actually, that is a very good question, and I don't know the answer for sure, so this is speculation. Let's get it clear up front that I believe they don't need a warrant to intercept international transmissions, so that what I say next isn't taken out of context. I think the administration has taken their stance regarding what they were authorized to do under the authorization of use of force because they are concerned with acting on the information obtained .

One can wiretap and get a warrant up to 72 hours later. The question is whether one can use or even process the information gleaned from that wiretap (or act upon it) without that warrant. I don't know that they can. This is the timing issue that I think they are concerned with.

So let's say you get a message that there will be a chemical attack in the NY subway system. You don't have a warrant that makes acting on said information legal. What do you do?

If my specualtion is correct, then you can legally do nothing. However, that certainly wouldn't be protecting the people of the United States. Hence the interpretation of the authorization of use of force. However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs. Why not phone calls and email? Why are electrons exempt?

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to NCC's post, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance except as provided otherwise by statute. Congress provided otherwise by statute in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11. (edited to add: at least that is the administration's interpretation)

I hadn't heard that. So it's the administration's position that the resoluation passed by Congress gave the President the freedom to circumvent the law?

Thank you, New York Times, for aiding and abetting the enemy.

Really, you should focus your ire on the administration leaks. The Times was doing it's duty in my opinion.

I've heard that expressed by Gonzalez (Fox and Friends, Monday morning). Specifically (this from a blog):

We believe that the president has the inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution to engage in signals intelligence of our enemy, against al Qaeda, but we also believe the president has statutory authority.... (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) does require a court order before we can engage in electronic surveillance … except as provided otherwise by statute. And we believe that Congress has ‘provided otherwise by statute’ in the authorization of the use of force, which Congress passed in the days following the attacks of Sept. 11.

My personal POV is that anything entering or leaving the country does not have 4th Amendment protection. If I enter or leave the country, I am subject to search (and potential siezure if I'm bringing in something illegal or not declaring stuff). So is my mail. Extending this to emails and phone calls doesn't seem that big a deal to me.

As to focussing my ire, NYT exposed an intelligence operation. That would lead our enemies to change tactics, thus leading to loss of intelligence capability, which in turn makes us less safe.

I do think the people who leaked this story need to see some punitive action, but at some point "responsible journalism" has to become something more than an oxymoron. Compromising wartime intelligence gathering, especially when that gathering appears to be legal is not repsonsible journalism. In fact there mnay be another word for it.

If we're passing along blog info...

From defensetech.org:

A few current and former signals intelligence guys have been checking in since this NSA domestic spying story broke. Their reactions range between midly creeped out and completely pissed off.

All of the sigint specialists emphasized repeatedly that keeping tabs on Americans is way beyond the bounds of what they ordinarily do -- no matter what the conspiracy crowd may think.

"It's drilled into you from minute one that you should not ever, ever, ever, under any ####### circumstances turn this massive apparatus on an American citizen," one source says. "You do a lot of weird ####. But at least you don't #### with your own people."

Another, who's generally very pro-Administration, emphasized that the operation at least started with people that had Al-Qaeda connections -- with some mass-spying master list. As the Times, in its original story, noted:

The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, they said....In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said....Since 2002, the agency has been conducting some warrantless eavesdropping on people in the United States who are linked, even if indirectly, to suspected terrorists through the chain of phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

But this call chain could very well have grown out of control, the source admits. Suddenly, people ten and twelve degrees of separation away from Osama may have been targeted.

Could have grown out of control but did it? May have been targeted but were they?

The blog also fails to specify whether the warrantless eavsdropping was on domestic or international communication, only that it was conducted on people in the US. It also fails to specify whether the eavsdropping was on incoming or outgoing messages. These are important details.

Let's be careful to realize where the NSA reactions end and the NYT article begins too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs. Why not phone calls and email? Why are electrons exempt?

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs.  Why not phone calls and email?  Why are electrons exempt? 

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Do you know the answer to the question posed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bueno, your house of cards is crumbling. From ThinkProgress:

Prominent right-wing bloggers – including Michelle Malkin, the Corner, Wizbang and Free Republic — are pushing the argument that President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program isn’t news because the Clinton administration did the same thing.

The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:

"During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon…all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks."

That’s flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:

"I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."

Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law and breaking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bueno, your house of cards is crumbling. From ThinkProgress:

Prominent right-wing bloggers – including Michelle Malkin, the Corner, Wizbang and Free Republic — are pushing the argument that President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program isn’t news because the Clinton administration did the same thing.

The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:

"During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon…all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks."

That’s flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:

"I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."

Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law and breaking it.

Tenet has signifcantly lss credibility than George Bush, as he should after his slam dunk comment. Even with you, he ought to have significantly less credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs.  Why not phone calls and email?  Why are electrons exempt? 

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Do you know the answer to the question posed?

I am not aware of a Supreme Court decision addressing that issue, so I don't know the answer. If you were to ask me my opinion, I would think that electronic communications are fundamentally different that border crossings by persons or packages. There is also the issue of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to telephone calls and e-mails. There is no such expectation when you are physically entering at a border. Similarly, there is no expectation of privacy with respect to packages that everyone knows must clear customs prior to entry to the United States. Not so with respect to phone calls or e-mails. Indeed, the secrecy which cloaked these practices by the government directly counters any argument that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to such communications. But I'm no 4th Amendment expert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs.  Why not phone calls and email?  Why are electrons exempt? 

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Do you know the answer to the question posed?

I am not aware of a Supreme Court decision addressing that issue, so I don't know the answer. If you were to ask me my opinion, I would think that electronic communications are fundamentally different that border crossings by persons or packages. There is also the issue of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to telephone calls and e-mails. There is no such expectation when you are physically entering at a border. Similarly, there is no expectation of privacy with respect to packages that everyone knows must clear customs prior to entry to the United States. Not so with respect to phone calls or e-mails. Indeed, the secrecy which cloaked these practices by the government directly counters any argument that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to such communications. But I'm no 4th Amendment expert.

You think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs.  Why not phone calls and email?  Why are electrons exempt? 

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Do you know the answer to the question posed?

I'm not entirely certain, but I believe it has to do with communications versus products. I believe the Custom Dept is the result of the need to collect duties and the like. The have no authority to search communications which e-mail, phone calls and the like are.

The Custom's Dept can do anything they want to protect ou physical boarders, but once it leaves the physical realm, no one has any jurisdiction.

i hope this answers your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bueno,

Can you please explain to me why the NSA or the Bush Administration didn't go back within 72 hours and retroactively get warrants?

Actually, that is a very good question, and I don't know the answer for sure, so this is speculation. Let's get it clear up front that I believe they don't need a warrant to intercept international transmissions, so that what I say next isn't taken out of context. I think the administration has taken their stance regarding what they were authorized to do under the authorization of use of force because they are concerned with acting on the information obtained .

One can wiretap and get a warrant up to 72 hours later. The question is whether one can use or even process the information gleaned from that wiretap (or act upon it) without that warrant. I don't know that they can. This is the timing issue that I think they are concerned with.

So let's say you get a message that there will be a chemical attack in the NY subway system. You don't have a warrant that makes acting on said information legal. What do you do?

If my specualtion is correct, then you can legally do nothing. However, that certainly wouldn't be protecting the people of the United States. Hence the interpretation of the authorization of use of force. However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs. Why not phone calls and email? Why are electrons exempt?

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

Okay, I am the left and I will respond.

So let's say you get a message that there will be a chemical attack in the NY subway system. You don't have a warrant that makes acting on said information legal. What do you do?

You don't need a warrant to act in this case. You can still go in with guns ablazing. You only need the warrant (after the fact) to allow you to do the evesdropping. If there is a chemical attack spoken of in an illegal wiretap and you foil the attack, your only problem there is you cannot prosecute the "alledged attacker" If there is no attack, well, then you're gonna get sued. The only time this version is flawed is if it was one of the 4 times out of 4000 that the judge ruled the wiretap illegal.

Bueno, the system now is a virtual rubber stamp. What the administration is doing is not even bothering to get the rubber stamp. For most "right thinking people" this makes me wonder why they don't want a paper trail of who they are looking into.

I have no problem with being aggressive in fighting the war on terror, but as bush himself said "Doing this without approval is like running a dictatorship" and that is what we seem to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs.  Why not phone calls and email?  Why are electrons exempt? 

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Do you know the answer to the question posed?

I am not aware of a Supreme Court decision addressing that issue, so I don't know the answer. If you were to ask me my opinion, I would think that electronic communications are fundamentally different that border crossings by persons or packages. There is also the issue of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to telephone calls and e-mails. There is no such expectation when you are physically entering at a border. Similarly, there is no expectation of privacy with respect to packages that everyone knows must clear customs prior to entry to the United States. Not so with respect to phone calls or e-mails. Indeed, the secrecy which cloaked these practices by the government directly counters any argument that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to such communications. But I'm no 4th Amendment expert.

You think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet?

I believe that there is a reaosnable expectation that the government is not monitoring and reading your e-mails, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bueno,

Can you please explain to me why the NSA or the Bush Administration didn't go back within 72 hours and retroactively get warrants?

Actually, that is a very good question, and I don't know the answer for sure, so this is speculation. Let's get it clear up front that I believe they don't need a warrant to intercept international transmissions, so that what I say next isn't taken out of context. I think the administration has taken their stance regarding what they were authorized to do under the authorization of use of force because they are concerned with acting on the information obtained .

One can wiretap and get a warrant up to 72 hours later. The question is whether one can use or even process the information gleaned from that wiretap (or act upon it) without that warrant. I don't know that they can. This is the timing issue that I think they are concerned with.

So let's say you get a message that there will be a chemical attack in the NY subway system.  You don't have a warrant that makes acting on said information legal.  What do you do?

If my specualtion is correct, then you can legally do nothing. However, that certainly wouldn't be protecting the people of the United States. Hence the interpretation of the authorization of use of force. However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs. Why not phone calls and email? Why are electrons exempt?

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

Okay, I am the left and I will respond.

So let's say you get a message that there will be a chemical attack in the NY subway system.  You don't have a warrant that makes acting on said information legal.  What do you do?

You don't need a warrant to act in this case. You can still go in with guns ablazing. You only need the warrant (after the fact) to allow you to do the evesdropping. If there is a chemical attack spoken of in an illegal wiretap and you foil the attack, your only problem there is you cannot prosecute the "alledged attacker" If there is no attack, well, then you're gonna get sued. The only time this version is flawed is if it was one of the 4 times out of 4000 that the judge ruled the wiretap illegal.

Bueno, the system now is a virtual rubber stamp. What the administration is doing is not even bothering to get the rubber stamp. For most "right thinking people" this makes me wonder why they don't want a paper trail of who they are looking into.

I have no problem with being aggressive in fighting the war on terror, but as bush himself said "Doing this without approval is like running a dictatorship" and that is what we seem to have.

Well, at least a dentist has a reasonable argument. So let's say we foil the attack and now have a perpetrator in hand. We can't prosecute him?

As I said, this is monitoring international communication. I'm not sure it is illegal, especially if the monitoring is done outside the US. It doesn't seem like any of the lawyers are sure either.

And as far as I'm concerned, once you side with terrorists against your own country, you need to be monitored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bueno is trying to fool everyone again. The communications that fall under the FISA act are ones that ORIGINATE IN THE US. These are outgoing communications, not incoming. Thus Bueno's customs argument is just another straw grasped at and missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs.  Why not phone calls and email?  Why are electrons exempt? 

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Do you know the answer to the question posed?

I am not aware of a Supreme Court decision addressing that issue, so I don't know the answer. If you were to ask me my opinion, I would think that electronic communications are fundamentally different that border crossings by persons or packages. There is also the issue of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to telephone calls and e-mails. There is no such expectation when you are physically entering at a border. Similarly, there is no expectation of privacy with respect to packages that everyone knows must clear customs prior to entry to the United States. Not so with respect to phone calls or e-mails. Indeed, the secrecy which cloaked these practices by the government directly counters any argument that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to such communications. But I'm no 4th Amendment expert.

You think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet?

I believe that there is a reaosnable expectation that the government is not monitoring and reading your e-mails, yes.

What about wire transfers??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs.  Why not phone calls and email?  Why are electrons exempt? 

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Do you know the answer to the question posed?

I am not aware of a Supreme Court decision addressing that issue, so I don't know the answer. If you were to ask me my opinion, I would think that electronic communications are fundamentally different that border crossings by persons or packages. There is also the issue of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to telephone calls and e-mails. There is no such expectation when you are physically entering at a border. Similarly, there is no expectation of privacy with respect to packages that everyone knows must clear customs prior to entry to the United States. Not so with respect to phone calls or e-mails. Indeed, the secrecy which cloaked these practices by the government directly counters any argument that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to such communications. But I'm no 4th Amendment expert.

You think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet?

I believe that there is a reaosnable expectation that the government is not monitoring and reading your e-mails, yes.

What about wire transfers??

I have no idea. I've never done an international wire transfer and haven't given it a thought before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs.  Why not phone calls and email?  Why are electrons exempt? 

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Do you know the answer to the question posed?

I am not aware of a Supreme Court decision addressing that issue, so I don't know the answer. If you were to ask me my opinion, I would think that electronic communications are fundamentally different that border crossings by persons or packages. There is also the issue of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to telephone calls and e-mails. There is no such expectation when you are physically entering at a border. Similarly, there is no expectation of privacy with respect to packages that everyone knows must clear customs prior to entry to the United States. Not so with respect to phone calls or e-mails. Indeed, the secrecy which cloaked these practices by the government directly counters any argument that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to such communications. But I'm no 4th Amendment expert.

You think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet?

I believe that there is a reaosnable expectation that the government is not monitoring and reading your e-mails, yes.

What about wire transfers??

wire transfer from or into the US are already monitored under various money laundering statutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bueno, your house of cards is crumbling. From ThinkProgress:

Prominent right-wing bloggers – including Michelle Malkin, the Corner, Wizbang and Free Republic — are pushing the argument that President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program isn’t news because the Clinton administration did the same thing.

The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:

"During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon…all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks."

That’s flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:

"I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."

Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law and breaking it.

Tenet has signifcantly lss credibility than George Bush, as he should after his slam dunk comment. Even with you, he ought to have significantly less credibility.

So you're taking issue with the documented fact that the FISA granted warrants for Echalon? Or are you just hoping that the fact that Tenet has been "discredited" will make everything he says automatically false, regardless of any documentation showing otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs.  Why not phone calls and email?  Why are electrons exempt? 

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Do you know the answer to the question posed?

I am not aware of a Supreme Court decision addressing that issue, so I don't know the answer. If you were to ask me my opinion, I would think that electronic communications are fundamentally different that border crossings by persons or packages. There is also the issue of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to telephone calls and e-mails. There is no such expectation when you are physically entering at a border. Similarly, there is no expectation of privacy with respect to packages that everyone knows must clear customs prior to entry to the United States. Not so with respect to phone calls or e-mails. Indeed, the secrecy which cloaked these practices by the government directly counters any argument that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to such communications. But I'm no 4th Amendment expert.

You think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet?

I believe that there is a reaosnable expectation that the government is not monitoring and reading your e-mails, yes.

What about wire transfers??

I have no idea. I've never done an international wire transfer and haven't given it a thought before.

Well all it is is electrons and the government controls the egress and ingress of $10,000 or more. You got to believe those electrons are monitored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs.  Why not phone calls and email?  Why are electrons exempt? 

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Do you know the answer to the question posed?

I am not aware of a Supreme Court decision addressing that issue, so I don't know the answer. If you were to ask me my opinion, I would think that electronic communications are fundamentally different that border crossings by persons or packages. There is also the issue of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to telephone calls and e-mails. There is no such expectation when you are physically entering at a border. Similarly, there is no expectation of privacy with respect to packages that everyone knows must clear customs prior to entry to the United States. Not so with respect to phone calls or e-mails. Indeed, the secrecy which cloaked these practices by the government directly counters any argument that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to such communications. But I'm no 4th Amendment expert.

You think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet?

I believe that there is a reaosnable expectation that the government is not monitoring and reading your e-mails, yes.

What about wire transfers??

wire transfer from or into the US are already monitored under various money laundering statutes.

The argument goes to whether "international" electrons are protected from monitoring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bueno is trying to fool everyone again. The communications that fall under the FISA act are ones that ORIGINATE IN THE US. These are outgoing communications, not incoming. Thus Bueno's customs argument is just another straw grasped at and missed.

He's not trying to fool anyone. All of his sentences have been couched with modifiers.

"I'm not sure..."

"It doesn't seem..."

"As far as I'm concerned..."

:)

He doesn't have to be right. He only has to sound right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bueno is trying to fool everyone again. The communications that fall under the FISA act are ones that ORIGINATE IN THE US. These are outgoing communications, not incoming. Thus Bueno's customs argument is just another straw grasped at and missed.

Yep, and the ones montitored originated outside the US. Your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bueno is trying to fool everyone again. The communications that fall under the FISA act are ones that ORIGINATE IN THE US. These are outgoing communications, not incoming. Thus Bueno's customs argument is just another straw grasped at and missed.

He's not trying to fool anyone. All of his sentences have been couched with modifiers.

"I'm not sure..."

"It doesn't seem..."

"As far as I'm concerned..."

:)

He doesn't have to be right. He only has to sound right.

Thank you for your support. Glad to see you open your mind and take the other side off ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bueno is trying to fool everyone again. The communications that fall under the FISA act are ones that ORIGINATE IN THE US. These are outgoing communications, not incoming. Thus Bueno's customs argument is just another straw grasped at and missed.

He's not trying to fool anyone. All of his sentences have been couched with modifiers.

"I'm not sure..."

"It doesn't seem..."

"As far as I'm concerned..."

:)

He doesn't have to be right. He only has to sound right.

Thank you for your support. Glad to see you open your mind and take the other side off ignore.

:)

I'm an equal opportunity kibitzer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs.  Why not phone calls and email?  Why are electrons exempt? 

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Do you know the answer to the question posed?

I am not aware of a Supreme Court decision addressing that issue, so I don't know the answer. If you were to ask me my opinion, I would think that electronic communications are fundamentally different that border crossings by persons or packages. There is also the issue of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to telephone calls and e-mails. There is no such expectation when you are physically entering at a border. Similarly, there is no expectation of privacy with respect to packages that everyone knows must clear customs prior to entry to the United States. Not so with respect to phone calls or e-mails. Indeed, the secrecy which cloaked these practices by the government directly counters any argument that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to such communications. But I'm no 4th Amendment expert.

You think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet?

I believe that there is a reaosnable expectation that the government is not monitoring and reading your e-mails, yes.

What about wire transfers??

wire transfer from or into the US are already monitored under various money laundering statutes.

The argument goes to whether "international" electrons are protected from monitoring.

Now that i think about it, it's not the actual wire transfer that gets monitored, but it's the financial insititutions or wire transfer firms that have to report all transactions over a certain amount to the proper authorities.

So yes, the actual transfers themselves (i.e. the electrons) are protected by the 4th amendment, the physical movement of the money from one bank/financial insitution to another is where the movement is picked up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bueno,

Can you please explain to me why the NSA or the Bush Administration didn't go back within 72 hours and retroactively get warrants?

Actually, that is a very good question, and I don't know the answer for sure, so this is speculation. Let's get it clear up front that I believe they don't need a warrant to intercept international transmissions, so that what I say next isn't taken out of context. I think the administration has taken their stance regarding what they were authorized to do under the authorization of use of force because they are concerned with acting on the information obtained .

One can wiretap and get a warrant up to 72 hours later. The question is whether one can use or even process the information gleaned from that wiretap (or act upon it) without that warrant. I don't know that they can. This is the timing issue that I think they are concerned with.

So let's say you get a message that there will be a chemical attack in the NY subway system.  You don't have a warrant that makes acting on said information legal.  What do you do?

If my specualtion is correct, then you can legally do nothing. However, that certainly wouldn't be protecting the people of the United States. Hence the interpretation of the authorization of use of force. However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs. Why not phone calls and email? Why are electrons exempt?

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

Okay, I am the left and I will respond.

So let's say you get a message that there will be a chemical attack in the NY subway system.  You don't have a warrant that makes acting on said information legal.  What do you do?

You don't need a warrant to act in this case. You can still go in with guns ablazing. You only need the warrant (after the fact) to allow you to do the evesdropping. If there is a chemical attack spoken of in an illegal wiretap and you foil the attack, your only problem there is you cannot prosecute the "alledged attacker" If there is no attack, well, then you're gonna get sued. The only time this version is flawed is if it was one of the 4 times out of 4000 that the judge ruled the wiretap illegal.

Bueno, the system now is a virtual rubber stamp. What the administration is doing is not even bothering to get the rubber stamp. For most "right thinking people" this makes me wonder why they don't want a paper trail of who they are looking into.

I have no problem with being aggressive in fighting the war on terror, but as bush himself said "Doing this without approval is like running a dictatorship" and that is what we seem to have.

Well, at least a dentist has a reasonable argument. So let's say we foil the attack and now have a perpetrator in hand. We can't prosecute him?

As I said, this is monitoring international communication. I'm not sure it is illegal, especially if the monitoring is done outside the US. It doesn't seem like any of the lawyers are sure either.

And as far as I'm concerned, once you side with terrorists against your own country, you need to be monitored.

Optometrist, not dentist.

Anyhow, so you can't prosecute for that crime. Think he ever has a shot for causing a problem again?

No one is siding with terrorists, WE ARE SIDING WITH THE US CONSTITUTION!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs.  Why not phone calls and email?  Why are electrons exempt? 

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Do you know the answer to the question posed?

I am not aware of a Supreme Court decision addressing that issue, so I don't know the answer. If you were to ask me my opinion, I would think that electronic communications are fundamentally different that border crossings by persons or packages. There is also the issue of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to telephone calls and e-mails. There is no such expectation when you are physically entering at a border. Similarly, there is no expectation of privacy with respect to packages that everyone knows must clear customs prior to entry to the United States. Not so with respect to phone calls or e-mails. Indeed, the secrecy which cloaked these practices by the government directly counters any argument that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to such communications. But I'm no 4th Amendment expert.

You think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet?

I believe that there is a reaosnable expectation that the government is not monitoring and reading your e-mails, yes.

What about wire transfers??

wire transfer from or into the US are already monitored under various money laundering statutes.

The argument goes to whether "international" electrons are protected from monitoring.

Doesn't seem so, otherwise the law would allow for monitoring of electrons and not for fund transfers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bueno is trying to fool everyone again. The communications that fall under the FISA act are ones that ORIGINATE IN THE US. These are outgoing communications, not incoming. Thus Bueno's customs argument is just another straw grasped at and missed.

He's not trying to fool anyone. All of his sentences have been couched with modifiers.

"I'm not sure..."

"It doesn't seem..."

"As far as I'm concerned..."

:)

He doesn't have to be right. He only has to sound right.

who does this remind you of?

A 2003 paper by Rutgers sociologist Ted Goertzel offers some interesting insight into the left-wing psyche:

In the 1970s, Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter administered Thematic Apperception Tests to a large sample of "new left" radicals (Roots of Radicalism, 1982). They found that activists were characterized by weakened self-esteem, injured narcissism and paranoid tendencies. They were preoccupied with power and attracted to radical ideologies that offered clear and unambiguous answers to their questions. . . .

The unwillingness to offer alternatives reveals a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. If they offered their own policy ideas they would be vulnerable to criticism. They would run the risk that their ideas would fail, or would not seem persuasive to others. This is especially difficult for anti-capitalists after the fall of the Soviet Union. It has also been difficult in the war against terrorism because Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are such unsympathetic figures. Psychologically, it is easier to blame America for not finding a solution than it is to put one's own ideas on the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs.  Why not phone calls and email?  Why are electrons exempt? 

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Do you know the answer to the question posed?

I am not aware of a Supreme Court decision addressing that issue, so I don't know the answer. If you were to ask me my opinion, I would think that electronic communications are fundamentally different that border crossings by persons or packages. There is also the issue of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to telephone calls and e-mails. There is no such expectation when you are physically entering at a border. Similarly, there is no expectation of privacy with respect to packages that everyone knows must clear customs prior to entry to the United States. Not so with respect to phone calls or e-mails. Indeed, the secrecy which cloaked these practices by the government directly counters any argument that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to such communications. But I'm no 4th Amendment expert.

You think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet?

I believe that there is a reaosnable expectation that the government is not monitoring and reading your e-mails, yes.

What about wire transfers??

wire transfer from or into the US are already monitored under various money laundering statutes.

The argument goes to whether "international" electrons are protected from monitoring.

Doesn't seem so, otherwise the law would allow for monitoring of electrons and not for fund transfers.

Your correct and I corrected myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bueno,

Can you please explain to me why the NSA or the Bush Administration didn't go back within 72 hours and retroactively get warrants?

Actually, that is a very good question, and I don't know the answer for sure, so this is speculation. Let's get it clear up front that I believe they don't need a warrant to intercept international transmissions, so that what I say next isn't taken out of context. I think the administration has taken their stance regarding what they were authorized to do under the authorization of use of force because they are concerned with acting on the information obtained .

One can wiretap and get a warrant up to 72 hours later. The question is whether one can use or even process the information gleaned from that wiretap (or act upon it) without that warrant. I don't know that they can. This is the timing issue that I think they are concerned with.

So let's say you get a message that there will be a chemical attack in the NY subway system.  You don't have a warrant that makes acting on said information legal.  What do you do?

If my specualtion is correct, then you can legally do nothing. However, that certainly wouldn't be protecting the people of the United States. Hence the interpretation of the authorization of use of force. However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs. Why not phone calls and email? Why are electrons exempt?

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

Okay, I am the left and I will respond.

So let's say you get a message that there will be a chemical attack in the NY subway system.  You don't have a warrant that makes acting on said information legal.  What do you do?

You don't need a warrant to act in this case. You can still go in with guns ablazing. You only need the warrant (after the fact) to allow you to do the evesdropping. If there is a chemical attack spoken of in an illegal wiretap and you foil the attack, your only problem there is you cannot prosecute the "alledged attacker" If there is no attack, well, then you're gonna get sued. The only time this version is flawed is if it was one of the 4 times out of 4000 that the judge ruled the wiretap illegal.

Bueno, the system now is a virtual rubber stamp. What the administration is doing is not even bothering to get the rubber stamp. For most "right thinking people" this makes me wonder why they don't want a paper trail of who they are looking into.

I have no problem with being aggressive in fighting the war on terror, but as bush himself said "Doing this without approval is like running a dictatorship" and that is what we seem to have.

Well, at least a dentist has a reasonable argument. So let's say we foil the attack and now have a perpetrator in hand. We can't prosecute him?

As I said, this is monitoring international communication. I'm not sure it is illegal, especially if the monitoring is done outside the US. It doesn't seem like any of the lawyers are sure either.

And as far as I'm concerned, once you side with terrorists against your own country, you need to be monitored.

Optometrist, not dentist.

Anyhow, so you can't prosecute for that crime. Think he ever has a shot for causing a problem again?

No one is siding with terrorists, WE ARE SIDING WITH THE US CONSTITUTION!!!

I just remembered it had something to do with the head - my apologizies.

I wasn't talking about you siding with the terrorists either. I was referring to the people being monitored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bueno is trying to fool everyone again. The communications that fall under the FISA act are ones that ORIGINATE IN THE US. These are outgoing communications, not incoming. Thus Bueno's customs argument is just another straw grasped at and missed.

Yep, and the ones montitored originated outside the US. Your point?

While I don't doubt that such communications are monitored, those aren't the ones overseen by FISA.

The communications in question now are ones that originated inside the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs.  Why not phone calls and email?  Why are electrons exempt? 

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Do you know the answer to the question posed?

I am not aware of a Supreme Court decision addressing that issue, so I don't know the answer. If you were to ask me my opinion, I would think that electronic communications are fundamentally different that border crossings by persons or packages. There is also the issue of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to telephone calls and e-mails. There is no such expectation when you are physically entering at a border. Similarly, there is no expectation of privacy with respect to packages that everyone knows must clear customs prior to entry to the United States. Not so with respect to phone calls or e-mails. Indeed, the secrecy which cloaked these practices by the government directly counters any argument that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to such communications. But I'm no 4th Amendment expert.

You think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet?

I believe that there is a reaosnable expectation that the government is not monitoring and reading your e-mails, yes.

What about wire transfers??

wire transfer from or into the US are already monitored under various money laundering statutes.

The argument goes to whether "international" electrons are protected from monitoring.

Doesn't seem so, otherwise the law would allow for monitoring of electrons and not for fund transfers.

Okay, you're obviously going to take me literally. The question was whether the transaction is monitored to ensure compliance by the banks involved and whether such monitoring (particularly of money coming into the country) requires a warrant if the monitoring is not being done in our country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just remembered it had something to do with the head - my apologizies.

I wasn't talking about you siding with the terrorists either. I was referring to the people being monitored.

truth be told here bueno, there are two problems I have with those on the far right like you.

1) They can never admit to anything clinton doing in the white house that was good for america.

and

2) they can never admit that anything bush has done is wrong or bad for america.

Both Katrina and The handling of supposed "post war (mission accomplished)" Iraq should be things you (anyone) should be outraged about, and most of america is. However, very little is being done to solve any of these issues.

I could step into fema tomorrow and have a better plan on the ground for the next hurricane. Then again, I care more about doing the job than being in a position of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, incoming persons, material and mail are subject to search by customs.  Why not phone calls and email?  Why are electrons exempt? 

This is the question the Left isn't addressing.

You're making a constitutional argument. I think there is a separate issue as to whether the administration violated statutory law, as opposed to violating the constitution.

Do you know the answer to the question posed?

I am not aware of a Supreme Court decision addressing that issue, so I don't know the answer. If you were to ask me my opinion, I would think that electronic communications are fundamentally different that border crossings by persons or packages. There is also the issue of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to telephone calls and e-mails. There is no such expectation when you are physically entering at a border. Similarly, there is no expectation of privacy with respect to packages that everyone knows must clear customs prior to entry to the United States. Not so with respect to phone calls or e-mails. Indeed, the secrecy which cloaked these practices by the government directly counters any argument that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to such communications. But I'm no 4th Amendment expert.

You think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet?

I believe that there is a reaosnable expectation that the government is not monitoring and reading your e-mails, yes.

What about wire transfers??

wire transfer from or into the US are already monitored under various money laundering statutes.

The argument goes to whether "international" electrons are protected from monitoring.

Doesn't seem so, otherwise the law would allow for monitoring of electrons and not for fund transfers.

Okay, you're obviously going to take me literally. The question was whether the transaction is monitored to ensure compliance by the banks involved and whether such monitoring (particularly of money coming into the country) requires a warrant if the monitoring is not being done in our country.

Well these are laws we're talking about so "literally" does matter. In any case it does require a warrant to monitor these transactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just remembered it had something to do with the head - my apologizies.

I wasn't talking about you siding with the terrorists either.  I was referring to the people being monitored.

truth be told here bueno, there are two problems I have with those on the far right like you.

1) They can never admit to anything clinton doing in the white house that was good for america.

and

2) they can never admit that anything bush has done is wrong or bad for america.

Both Katrina and The handling of supposed "post war (mission accomplished)" Iraq should be things you (anyone) should be outraged about, and most of america is. However, very little is being done to solve any of these issues.

I could step into fema tomorrow and have a better plan on the ground for the next hurricane. Then again, I care more about doing the job than being in a position of power.

And 1) and 2) can be turned right back around on the far left by switching the names of Clinton and Bush. :potkettle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't doubt that such communications are monitored, those aren't the ones overseen by FISA.

The communications in question now are ones that originated inside the US.

You don't know that. You don't even know who specifically was monitored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well these are laws we're talking about so "literally" does matter. In any case it does require a warrant to monitor these transactions.

I'll remember that if ever I'm in court with you.

So just to be sure, if the transaction was monitored in Nigeria, it would take a warrant to monitor the transaction? What court would have authority to monitor that transaction going from Nigeria to the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.