I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536838.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/index.html

Now, I'm admittedly FAR more anti-big brother then most people and this sort of thing really ticks me off. Eavesdropping on American citizens without court approval basically makes me really uncomfortable with where this country is going and makes me start yelling about regime change through any means possible. But some of the people being looked into probably aren't American citizens, they just happen to be within our borders. Do they deserve the same rights and protections we have as American citizens? If it was a time sensitive issue would the court really take that long to give clearance to spying on someone suspected of having ties to Al Queda, citizen or not? We have a court specifically for this sort of thing, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. Why not use it?

Not taking sides on this one, (yet) just opening it up for discussion.

Bush has two lines of defense.

The first is, so what?

The second is that the proper members of Congress have been informed of what's going on.

Problem is, accoring to Sen. Feingold, nobody in Congress new about the wiretaps.

Even worse is that the NSA already had authority to perform these wiretaps under current law as long as they filed for a warrant within 72 hours. They just never did...

So it appears that once again, Bush is full of horse hockey and is attempting to obfuscate the facts so John Q Public gets confused and tunes out.

This is looking like something to get pissed about.

-spence

We live in an increasingly threatened society. Threatened by idealists of various persuasions that will go to any extreme to undermine it for their own version of reality.
Where do you think we should draw the line in allowing the 1st amendment to apply?

The line should be drawn at the law.

After 9/11 Bush would have been granted just about anything he asked for.

The moment we sacrifice the Constitution to the illusion of safety, we have lost much to the phantom of terror.

-spence

we've also lost much to the REALITY of terror. btw-loved bushs first line of defense :hihi:

If this leads to rounding up and catching the terroists in this country i dont have an issue with it. I have nothing to hide so i could care less. Its not like they are going after me or joe average. they are going after suspected terroists to try and defend us from the radicals who want to kill us. I admit i dont know all the details to this topic, but if this leads to stopping another 9/11 or other terroist plots do it.

Bottom line for me is i have nothing to hide so why should i be worried. Its the radicals they are targeting not me so do what it takes to keep my family safe.

Do they deserve the same rights and protections we have as American citizens?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
well if they dont.....because they are not american citizens.......
then "we the people ->as Americans should be allowed more consideration......because of the circumstance...

"when" in the interest of national security something thats not related at all to terrorism is discovered......OTHERWIZE its just an convient excuse to spy on us AMERICANS... hell they can read the words on a dime from
a satelite over head.... drive by and read your voice vibrations off of your window glass....view the contents of your house with infa red,
track you to within ten feet by your cell phone number
and on and on and on....it goes

whats next? they're gonna decide what we should believe.
it is time to take a stand and not just be silent,,,

have you heard even one damn puplic official say
make sure to have a digital camera to take their picture
has any kid in america been told this when encountering a bad guy....no although some are using their cell phones...
America can do allot MORE than what their being allowed to...
i'll never forget 9-11
but i shall also never forget a little publisized story about this
scumbag that was protesting the display of an american flag post 9-11 that was visable from his apartment.....and nobody
thought...:think: well GEE this sucker MUST be a bad guy....
and later on it was discovered that he was indeed a bad guy.
the lack of conectivity of all the dots....needs rapid improovement and i think the American people can do as good a job as the intelligence community if given half a chance or at least be contributers of clues and information.
just look at the sucess rate for america's most wanted and the lost kid electronic billboard which gets the whole american public INVOLVED and it should be EXACTLY the same for terrorism if not more so considering the consequences in both lives lost in 9-11 and the financial cost to america for not having been able to stop it in the first place.

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security- Benjamin Franklin

the unknown Nebe.....

The founding fathers would leave this country if they were living here today and are currently rolling in their graves.

We have flaws but our flaws are less than other countries and we are the best country by on this planet far!

There is a fine line on spying on people in this country. As far as I am concerned it would take just a few mins to contact a judge for a wire tap approval and that judge will (hopefully) be able to make the right decision if there is probable cause for the wire tap.

The funny thing is that the 911 commision was bitching at the govt saying that they did not do enough "information gathering" to prevent the events of 911.

I dont like the fact that the members of congress are blaming this on bush as they were the ones who passed the patriot act laws, it is not about protecting the citizens but covering the members of congress asses and how they can line their pockets.

you triggered a memory.... someting like the mixer ball wrattling around in a almost empty spray paint can..... in my mind....this quote from the movie "the fugitive " Staring tommy lee jones and harrison ford.... Tommy Lee JONES yells: "i wanna Know what he had for breakfast "

Can you really win a war on terrorism by following rules the enemy scoffs at?

you triggered a memory.... someting like the mixer ball wrattling around in a almost empty spray paint can..... in my mind....this quote from the movie "the fugitive " Staring tommy lee jones and harrison ford.... Tommy Lee JONES yells: "i wanna Know what he had for breakfast "

I fell asleep on the living room floor last night waking up with a stiff neck and achy back so I was a little grumpy when I woke up. ;)

There is a fine line but a concrete line on "who" is allowed to surveil "who". The CIA and the NSA are allowed to conduct surveilance (and the CIA, operations) on foreign countries. The FBI has responsibility to conduct actions within the US, and provided all done within the context of the law. The NSA will periodically assist the FBI in technical means and and provide personnel as members of a FBI operation. The FBI is a law driven organization and executes it's mission "legaly" as its members really consider themselves federal Law Enforcement Officers so they are given a mission to do, they understand the legal portion, and they execute it. The NSA people are often proffesional geeks, do what they are told, have certain legal constraints to operate in, but they are not Law Enforcement Officers or have that mentality. Certainly the field people are given a mission and told to execute it - but while aware of what they can and can't do - they are not law enforcement officers.

This has worked - properly for the most part - for decades.

I'm uncomfortable to see that changed. But if these actions were being carried out with the court that they are legally supposed to, I'd feel a lot better....

The NSA like the CIA and FBI are staffed by real American people. People that honor this country and its ideals just like those who are in the military. They are not necessarily like the people depicted in movies and books, they are not evil, bent on circumventing the law and establishing world dominance with "sharks with frickin' laser beams" but real people, real Americans. Now what happens with the data they collect and what decisions are made with that data by politicians - THAT is the scary part :shocked:

Can you really win a war on terrorism by following rules the enemy scoffs at?
My .02 : Those rules are what makes America America. Those rules are why they hate us. Change them, throw out or suspend our Constitutional Rights, and we aren't us any more. We are something or someone else, and the bad guys win. Our written guarantees are gone and they're still here. Making us change slowly, but surely makes us go away. We win the war on terrorism by standing our ground and making THEM change to a free society. How? by persuasion and Example. The more freedom we lose, the closer we come to them. They figured it out.

After fully reading the details of this issue it appears that standard probable cause rules apply to these eavesdropping situations. I would compare it to being pulled over by police and your car reeks of pot. Probable cause at that point exists and you will be "legally" searched. If you are known to converse or communicate with individuals or groups with terrorist ties probable cause will exist and wiretaps may be implemented. I'm not sure if this is infringing on our civil rights anymore than already existing standards of search and seizure.

I understand where Pete G and the Raven are coming from, but after all congress was briefed 12 times on who, what, when, and where. The people who want to unseat Bush Jr. just did not or forgot to attend those meetings. We have so many safeguards in place such as big mouth news reporters, print or electronic, who bribe pentagon employees in one way or another and who are trying to curry favor with thier editors, NOT US, by getting classified documents leaked and printed in the newspaper or voiced on a television broadcast. Let be serious here for a moment, who here actually though this never took place? As far as do these person who may not be citizens deserve all the same rights as us, maybe, maybe not. The war on terrorists and terror can and is an extraordinarily broad and all encompassing activity sometimes inocents will get swept up in a good goverment employees zeal. If these same poeple were as active and successfull on September 10, 2001 and captured or killed Mr. Atta and his associates and it becoame public that the success the government had in taking out Atta was based on wiretap evidence, would anyone here complain about that surveillance now. I mean Mr. Atta was living here if only for a short period of time so he would have those same inalienable rights as us, no. We will never know how many incidents of violence have been averted by wiretaps or surveillance. The only time I have found that anyone really cares is when it becomes public. Out of sight out of mind.

I read it the same way. The difference is that the Legislative Branch and the Administrative Branch left the Judicial Branch out. It's legal IF you go to the Court and tell them. Otherwise it's not legal. This is how we protect ourselves from, well, ourselves. out of sight out of mind? Yes, of course, that's the master plan.

Every right we lose because we fear terrorists is a victory for the terrorists. Guard your rights. Someday you will have none left.

Every right we lose because we fear terrorists is a victory for the terrorists. Guard your rights. Someday you will have none left.
Exactly!:claps:

Every right we lose because we fear terrorists is a victory for the terrorists. Guard your rights. Someday you will have none left.

True, But how can people be pissed that we are spying on suspected terroists? They are not spying on you and me. They are spying on the scumbags who may be plotting to kill my family and yours next. The job of the government is propect its people, sounds like they are doing whatever they can to do so. Of course the media makes it sound like they are spying on anyone and everyone when in fact that is false. They are spying on people with suspected ties to terroism for crying out loud.

The media never said that Skip.

The issue is, is it ok for the President to break the law just because they think it's for the good of the American people?

-spence

And by the way, what makes you think that "They" are not spying on you and I? For all we know, the FBI, NSA or whomever, have hardware and software that comb the net with filters and any time keywords such as "President", "terrorist", or "bomb" are posted on some message board (such as this one) the "geeks" that John mentioned could very well be reading Your post, this post, or whatever post. If someone posts something that "They" deem as suspicious, or subversive, or "unpatriotic", do "They" then take the next step and begin tapping YOUR or MY emails and telephone conversations without obtaining a warrent ahead of time?
Just a thought...

"The issue is, is it ok for the President to break the law just because they think it's for the good of the American people?"

Ok if thats the big question then i'm still ok with it. Like i said in my previous posts they are doing this to protect us from terroism, They are not doing this to pry into our lives. The only people this will affect are suspected terroists. What if this leads to preventing attacks in the U.S and abroad? How the hell can anyone be against that? And its obvious the intensions of this are to protect the American people. If you have to break the law to protect my family from scumbags go right ahead i'm all for it. Terroists should be the only ones nervous with this.

And by the way, what makes you think that "They" are not spying on you and I? For all we know, the FBI, NSA or whomever, have hardware and software that comb the net with filters and any time keywords such as "President", "terrorist", or "bomb" are posted on some message board (such as this one) the "geeks" that John mentioned could very well be reading Your post, this post, or whatever post. If someone posts something that "They" deem as suspicious, or subversive, or "unpatriotic", do "They" then take the next step and begin tapping YOUR or MY emails and telephone conversations without obtaining a warrent ahead of time?
Just a thought...

Well unless you have ties to Terroism you have nothing to worry about. If you start posting stuff regarding blowing up buildings and financing terroists then i'd be worried. Until you start doing that you have nothing to worry about so chill out!

MoroneSaxitilus,
Those software programs are easy to come by for virtually any subject matter. The government most assuredly filters out the words you just printed and more. My wife has a girlfriend who is quite brilliant and self-taught in computor sciences. She got paid by a company to latch onto and filter out everything that traveled the net about a certain medical subject. I watched it all one night while I was playing cards at her house. It was amazing. The woman and my wife were math majors in the same college. So if she could latch onto what she needed in the medical field any government agency can do the same.

Skip, I think you're missing my point. I certainly have nothing to hide from law enforcement. I engage in no illegal activity. Does that mean that I want someone reading my private emails or listening to my private phone calls? When some guys have posted on this thread that if we give up too many civil liberties then we become just like the enemy, this is exactly what they're talking about. During the cold war, communist regimes could evesdrop on thier citizens without the permission of any courts or any other authority and without fear of reprisal. So are we to follow that path? Doesn't that, as some have said here, make US just like THEM, thereby allowing Them to "win"?

What this boils down to is simple. Do you think the president should break the 10 comandments of our constitution without permision from our representitives in congress and the senate?

i dont. Why??? its un-constitutional, and the president should not be above the law ever.. duh...:hs:

It isn't just terrorists that they are monitoring, it would be any suspicious communication or any thing that may send up a flag.

if I have a friend overseas that I send e-mails to that could be enough for them to have a look. Is that right? my privacy invaded just because i have a buddy overseas.

One thing that keeps getting mentioned over and over again is that if we start to change because of what THEY do....then THEY win. That is so true, we can't let them change us.

We can't turn into a society of prying, suspicious, paranoid people....no good can come from that.

"It isn't just terrorists that they are monitoring, it would be any suspicious communication or any thing that may send up a flag."

Um how is that a bad thing? Dont we want them to look into anything that might seem kinda suspicious to help protect us?:huh: Or should we not moniter %$%$%$%$ like we did pre 9-11 and wait till we get wacked again? Do what it takes to keep the citizens safe is all i'm saying. If this helps catch one dirtbag and save lifes i think its worth it.

Skip, go to the library and check out '1984'. If you think what is going on is fine, then you need to read this book.

oh, and just so you know, the US. Goverment, moniters what books you check out too :hs:

Skip, go to the library and check out '1984'. If you think what is going on is fine, then you need to read this book.

oh, and just so you know, the US. Goverment, moniters what books you check out too :hs:


Oh man the goverment might know i like to read about fishing and history....well will this insanity all end!?:tooth:

If I worked for the NSA, CIA, FBI I would have my own filter.........."eels","spots","needle","fifty pounder","lami","plugs":laugha: :laugha: :laugha: I'd have everyones secret spot.

Seriously.....I gladly give up some of my "rights" to live in the best country in the world. What did Jack Nickolson say in that movie...."you can't handle the truth". There is allot of secret stuff that all these agencies do, within the law and out of the law, to make our country safer for everyone. I am sure there is many things that you never even here of happening, and that is the way it should be. The media loves to show secrets or little known tactics of these agencies. It is neat to know this info, but once the cat is out of the bag then it no longer works. Best to keep lots of things secret from the common public. Just my .02c

here's the way i look at this.. (from a teenage perspective)

The national guard will be looking for terrorists on the Golden Gate Bridge, with hummers on both side, their trying to sneak up on this terrorists if they see any, thing is, they're dressed in camoflauge clothes, the face paint and all.. and for those who forgot, the Golden Gate Bridge is Bright Orange.

I think this whole terrorist thing has gone way to far, bush has passed the line. Definitly guard your rights, cause the way i feel right now, they've already pretty much taken them away. thats my .02

-kate-

"I think this whole terrorist thing has gone way to far"

Way to far are you kidding me? what you think its some big scam and made up? Do you remember 9/11, the bombings in London and Spain? and you still think this is blown outta proportion? With all do respect thats the mind set that got us where we are in the first place, we let or guard down and got wacked, we didnt take terrosim as seriously as we should have.Yeah lets pretend terrosim isnt a real threat and maybe it will all just go away.:doh:

Skip,

To give up personal freedom in response to terrorisim is akin to giving in to terrorisim. It's exactly what they want.

-spence

"I think this whole terrorist thing has gone way to far"

Way to far are you kidding me? what you think its some big scam and made up?

No, But its definitely becoming a convenient excuse. Everytime this administration makes a mistake we here that word. Its like their own little "Get out of Jail Free"card.

Skip,

To give up personal freedom in response to terrorisim is akin to giving in to terrorisim. It's exactly what they want.

-spence

What personal freedom are we giving up in this whole spying thing!? They are spying on suspected terroists not you and me for god sake!? Are you concerned about the terroists personal freedom? I dont see how this is so damn hard understand. It does not affect you and me Spence it only affects suspected terroists. Unless you have plans to do some suicide bombings or are fiancing terroists none of this affects you or I.

No, But its definitely becoming a convenient excuse. Everytime this administration makes a mistake we here that word. Its like their own little "Get out of Jail Free"card.

Please give me an example of when the administration used terroism as an escuse to cover thier ass on a non terroism related topic? Are they out there blaming terrosism for people not having jobs or something? This outta be good...

Please give me an example of when the administration used terroism as an escuse to cover thier ass on a non terroism related topic? Are they out there blaming terrosism for people not having jobs or something? This outta be good...



Oh I don't know....But Spying on the Public illegally comes to mind. Which is what this thread is about.

What personal freedom are we giving up in this whole spying thing!? They are spying on suspected terroists not you and me for god sake!?
Skip, why do you think a warrant is required before the police can enter your house?

-spence

What personal freedom are we giving up in this whole spying thing!? They are spying on suspected terroists not you and me for god sake!?

Please Define "Suspected Terrorists"

What makes one fall into this category.

Almost 300 million legal residents of this country and this spying on suspected terrorist occurred 30 times, 30 times. Oh my Gosh.....

Skip, why do you think a warrant is required before the police can enter your house?

-spence

Did you see the presidents news conferance today? I think he does a fine job in expaining the whole ordeal. I think the majority of americans will be on his side when they realize whats going on and why its being done, and who its targeting.. Then again you guys think Bush lies about everything so you wont believe it anyway:doh: Kinda funny to that the intel comittee knew all about this spying ordeal...maybe even some liberals knew about this. :uhoh:

Well, I believe the President has authorized the program 30 time...not 30 individual wiretaps...

-spence

[QUOTE=Swimmer]Almost 300 million legal residents of this country and this spying on suspected terrorist occurred 30 times, 30 times. Oh my Gosh.....[/QUOTE


Oh but those nice terrosists have had thier privacy vilolated. we cant do that to them its so not right. :doh:

Typical anti Bush crowd looking for anything to take him down. this is just thier latest try.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DOMTRAN), provide for the common defence (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html), promote the general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#POSTERITY), do ordain (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ORDAIN) and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We the people of the Unitied States-legal resident only.....

insure domestic tranquility....ah whats this

promote general welfare.....well-being of our residents

Does anyone here realize how elastic the constitution is?

Both sides of the argument in this post is all here in the preamble.

Hey what about all those fisherman that spy on us to try and find the good spots? I had to buy a new boat to get away from them!!!!!
Are they part of the government conspiracy too?

And how about all them spot burners? Do you think we can get the feds on top o them too?

How about the credit card companies selling you buying habits or our amazon selling the customer activity on their website.

How about the company selling traffic information based on cellphone activity?

We live in an increasingly publicly visible society it's part of the way of life. You can't hide, you can't and be a normal part of society.

The president appears to be breaking the law to achieve the same results if he had gone to the special courts which will rubber stamp its approval even after or within the 72 hour spying period.
There always seems to be a conflict with this president.

Are they out there blaming terrosism for people not having jobs or something? This outta be good...


"The march to war affected the people's confidence. It's hard to make investment. See, if you're a small business owner or a large business owner and you're thinking about investing, you've got to be optimistic when you invest. Except when you're marching to war, it's not a very optimistic thought, is it? In other words, it's the opposite of optimistic when you're thinking you're going to war. War is not conducive to -- for investment.
-- George Bush -- Springfield, Missouri, Feb. 9, 2004

I think thats what he's saying here....but sometimes i need to buy a vowel when reading his speeches.

and the War in Iraq IS Directly linked to the War on Terrorism......in W's own words.

Please Define "Suspected Terrorists"

What makes one fall into this category.

If you dont know that by now you really havent learned anything since 9/11 have you. Lets see here...someone who is known to communicate, fund or support terroist activty might raise a red flag or two to most normal people. Dont ya think?

Like the typical libreal you are its so obvious what you were hoping i would say....Everyone who looks middle eastern is what you wanted me to say right? so you could go ahead and call me a racist right? You people are so predictable its commical. and very out of touch with the reallity of the war on terror and how serious it is. I thank God everyday we have someone in office who understands the reallity of our enemy and how savage they are. we would seriously be %$%$%$%$ed if someone like you, who has no clue who the enemy is was in power.

"and the War in Iraq IS Directly linked to the War on Terrorism......in W's own words."

nah there are no terroists in Iraq nor have there ever been:doh:

Skip;
What defines a terrorist or suspected terrorist?
Where is the line drawn. If I send an anti-Bush email to a buddy am I suddenly flagged and now they can read my library record? Where is the line drawn?
You really think Bush knows an F'ing thing about how savage and the 'reality' of our enemy? Bush knows what his people tell him to know.
So tell me who the Enemy is, if 'someone like TDF or Spence of me' doesn't know???
Maybe because you just typed Iraq and terrorist in the same sentance you're now pegged as a suspected terrorist how does that make you feel?
And typical conservative, can't admit something the Bush administration did wrong......

I would be very curious to have anyone name one US citizen that lost any of their civil liberties as a result of the patriot act. Non US citizens do not have civil liberties from the US constitution.

The ability to defend our country by whatever means necessary is what we have lost

Please give me an example of when the administration used terroism as an escuse to cover thier ass on a non terroism related topic? Are they out there blaming terrosism for people not having jobs or something? This outta be good...

Hmm.. the War in Iraq comes to mind.....

If you dont know that by now you really havent learned anything since 9/11 have you. Lets see here...someone who is known to communicate, fund or support terroist activty might raise a red flag or two to most normal people. Dont ya think?

Like the typical libreal you are its so obvious what you were hoping i would say....Everyone who looks middle eastern is what you wanted me to say right? so you could go ahead and call me a racist right? You people are so predictable its commical. and very out of touch with the reallity of the war on terror and how serious it is. I thank God everyday we have someone in office who understands the reallity of our enemy and how savage they are. we would seriously be %$%$%$%$ed if someone like you, who has no clue who the enemy is was in power.


The point I was TRYING to make was that you can't tell. I wasn't trying to label you a racist, I was trying to point out the fact that you just can't tell. So how does the government make the determination that they need to snoop on you. Where do they make the determination someone is a threat...thats what scares me about this situation. can they just go looking and say "Well I thought he might be a terrorist"

And Why is it that everytime someone disagrees w/ you they are labeled a Liberal. I am not a liberal. That seems to be your fallback argument for everything

I believe that people should work hard for everything they get and should not expect handouts. I also believe that if a person truly needs help we should give it to them.....not because of my politics but because its the right thing to do as a human being.

One more thing, in all the threads we've posted in, I have never attacked your character and I would appreciate the same respect and consideration. I don't paricularly care for your politics but I would not use terms like "people like you" or "we would seriously be %$%$%$%$ed if someone like you" in any of my posts.

RI,
I am a conservative and will admit what and when Bush does something wrong, i.e., the borders, spending to name a few.

I think it is more accurate to say that Liberals/Democrats will not admit when he does something right. It is also accurate to say that they Liberals/Democrats will not admit when there party does anything wrong.
We all know that there is not much that they have done right!

First off:
I would admit to it it Bush was right; Immediatly after 9/11 I thought he was doing a pretty OK job; unfortunetly he has continued to duck and run on alot of issues.
As far as the last part; I'm leaving that alone. No flame wars :D

I think most everyone thought he was doing well then. But, like everything else, time has a way of making people forget why we are where we are today.

I was there on 9-11 and I will not forget why and where we are. It is a shame that the feelings of patriotism and pride in country are such a distant memory for so many.

No President is perfect. I think if more people remembered, we wouldn't be worrying about affording non-Americans civil rights providing by OUR consititution.

I think if more people remembered, we wouldn't be worrying about affording non-Americans civil rights providing by OUR consititution.
I think this is the problem...that's not really what this argument is about.

We have a process to ensure that exceptions to civil liberties (i.e. wiretaps, snooping email etc...) are applied lawfully to all people. The laws for non-citizens may be different, but we have no idea who's being watched do we?

Bush is asking the American people to let the policy makers judge who's a suspect and when their civil rights should be infringed in an effort to provide safety.

If history is any guide, then it's clear the Government has a track record of misusing similar authority under many administrations. Nixon illegally spied on Vietnam war protesters, even detaining them at times to silence dissent.

Even if Bush's intentions are good, it's a slippery slope they are well aware of and intentionally skirting. Existing law gives plenty of authority if used properly.

The old "I'm not worried because I'm not doing anything wrong" argument doesn't really cut it. I think Barak Obama said it best:

A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief - I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper - that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.

Others are looking out for you, but are you returning the favor?

-spence

I am sure that there are some zealots that are abusing their power. The Clinton's used the IRS for example. Even Lincoln sent a dissenter to Canada.

In my opinion, the bottom line is that the need to "spy on Terrorists" still remains. If we gain valuable information is it not worth it? If we can prevent another 9-11 is that not worth it?

You said existing law gives plenty of authority is used properly. That is my point. They want to change existing law. The senators that want to change the law have forgotten that they have discussed this with the President on a dozen occassions. This is existing law

As far as Barak Obama's statement is concerned; I don't know of an Arab American family that has been abducted because of their country of origin. (If they were truely Citizens, then they were done a huge wrong.) I will willingly help those those that seek it, not those that demand it. I volunteer to adult reading programs, Big-Brother etc. These people want their lives to be better and are willing to do something on their own. I do not believe in being my brothers keeper. I will volunteer to be their coach, their mentor, their reading teacher, their friend, if they want. I am much less likely to do anything if they demand something.
.

I think this is the problem...that's not really what this argument is about.

We have a process to ensure that exceptions to civil liberties (i.e. wiretaps, snooping email etc...) are applied lawfully to all people. The laws for non-citizens may be different, but we have no idea who's being watched do we?

Bush is asking the American people to let the policy makers judge who's a suspect and when their civil rights should be infringed in an effort to provide safety.

If history is any guide, then it's clear the Government has a track record of misusing similar authority under many administrations. Nixon illegally spied on Vietnam war protesters, even detaining them at times to silence dissent.

Even if Bush's intentions are good, it's a slippery slope they are well aware of. Existing law gives plenty of authority if used properly.

The old "I'm not worried because I'm not doing anything wrong" argument doesn't really cut it. I think Barak Obama said it best:



Others are looking out for you, but are you returning the favor?

-spence

In my opinion, the bottom line is that the need to "spy on Terrorists" still remains. If we gain valuable information is it not worth it? If we can prevent another 9-11 is that not worth it?
And from what I understand, there is nothing preventing the Govt from spying on terrorists today. Simply that if the suspect is an citizen the agency must report the activity for a warrant within 72 hours.

So why skip the oversight?

-spence

Just to keep things straight, the Patriot Act gave the President the authority to authorize "emergency" wiretaps without a court order. what you guys really should be arguing about is what constitues and "emergency" and do these wiretaps meet that definition.

You're right Mike but, the problem lies in one's definition of emergency.

The President and the Attorney General both indicated that the calls that are being "tapped" are international calls. The calls are initiated either in a country on the OFAC list or going to those countries.

Just to keep things straight, the Patriot Act gave the President the authority to authorize "emergency" wiretaps without a court order. what you guys really should be arguing about is what constitues and "emergency" and do these wiretaps meet that definition.


I thought that it gave them the right to do the tap without the court order....but they still had to file for a court order within 72 hours of doing it.

I could be mistaken but that was my understanding.

You are right about trying to define an "Emergency" it opens up a lot of grey area

I've never heard anyone say the Patriot Act gives this power.

The Administration's case is that the Congressional War Powers vote after 9/11 provided the justification, which is a legal slippery slope and the Congressional Dems strongly refute.

-spence

The two sources at the beginning of this thread cited a NY Times article by a reporter who has written a book. The reporter admitted to holding the article for one year to be printed at the time his book is released. That is IMO, questionable and self serving.

This same article was referred to by Senators as part of the reason they were voting against the Patriot Act.

If you can't trust the source how can you trust those who refer to it? These Senators complain about loosing civil liberties. Who has lost them? What, if anything, have they lost? I don't mind standing in a longer line at the airport. I think the increased screening is worth the wait.

Ultimately, the question is do we feel safer as a result of having the Patriot Act?

So when i go to the airport and they search my luggage and frisk me in public without my permission arent my civil rights being violated? I meen they never called and went to court to get a warrant for that right? Oh wait maybe they do that becuase its in the best interest of our safety and natianal security. Imagine that, someone trying to protect me, how dare they do that! :rollem:

Apples and Oranges Skippy;
In the airport it is Posted what you can and can't do and it is Policy as to what is going to happen; dont like it you dont have to travel; at least you KNOW the policy and KNOW you are being frisked searched... what they were doing is the same thing, except they searched your luggage and frisked you without you knowing.....

There was a good point ranged.. out of 4000 warrants asked for 4 (four) were denied; so why did they bother to do it the WRONG way against the LAW?

You guys seem to be mixing a lot of issues...this isn't that complicated.

-spence

You guys seem to be mixing a lot of issues...this isn't that complicated.

-spence

Your right its not...When will you get it:hidin: :hihi:

Oh and TDF sould feel special. He just just joined a very exclusive club with the likes of Nebe and Spence. Its called the Skip N got pissed,lost his cool and dropped some nasty words on me club. :hihi: anyone else wanna join?:hidin:

Oh and TDF sould feel special. He just just joined a very exclusive club with the likes of Nebe and Spence. Its called the Skip N got pissed,lost his cool and dropped some nasty words on me club. :hihi: anyone else wanna join?:hidin:


I got a feeling after awhile its not going to be so exclusive.


But at least it has some quality membership..:hihi:

[QUOTE But at least it has some quality membership..:hihi:[/QUOTE]

Well thats very debatable on the "quality" of the memebership :hihi:

But hey i love a good debate like you guys do but once in awhile i just lose mt cool! No hard feelings i hope to anyone, I'll try and be more civil in the future. Key word being "try" :tooth:

Losing your cool is just the beginning and before you know it you'll be strapping bombs around your waist saying, "IS ANYONE GOING TO LISTEN TO ME OR ELSE":hihi:

I've never heard anyone say the Patriot Act gives this power.


Then you need to read more. :)

Dad,
I thought that it gave them the right to do the tap without the court order....but they still had to file for a court order within 72 hours of doing it.

Yes that's right.

Source? Trust me, I've read plenty :exp:

-spence

Source? Trust me, I've read plenty :exp:

-spence
Christ, I thought you were on the road. It was nice and quiet till you, obviously, got home.:doh:

Losing your cool is just the beginning and before you know it you'll be strapping bombs around your waist saying, "IS ANYONE GOING TO LISTEN TO ME OR ELSE":hihi:

I only drop " F bombs" and maybe a bitch slap or two when needed :tooth:

The line should be drawn at the law.

After 9/11 Bush would have been granted just about anything he asked for.

The moment we sacrifice the Constitution to the illusion of safety, we have lost much to the phantom of terror.

-spence

Dead on the right answer Spence, the law.

Bush fights Terrorists. Liberals fight Bush. My enemys enemy is my friend.

Yup, trash at the curb that you put out for B.F.I. is where law enforcement gets most of thier PC (probable cause) for anything intrusive such as search warrant or wiretaps, and it moves onward and upward from there. Once its on the curb its anybodys business what is in the bag(s). You don't need reasonable suspicion, which is less than PC. No one needs anything for trash. Lets see what can be had from trash; phone records, credit card receipts, and on and on and on...So if anybody wants to spy on anybody you start at the curb and if something is amiss in the trash that will eventually get JOHN LAW into your life on a more personal scale.

This post is starting to bore me, Spence hasn't come out with anything novel in his last several post. Same old poo.........

SKIPN..this is only entertainment for these guys relax.

Not much more I can say unless someone brings up a counterpoint.

-spence

Source? Trust me, I've read plenty :exp:

-spence

The Patriot act itself, if you read it you'll find the provision.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-21-05/a01lo280.htm

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-21-05/a01lo280.htm


It's disturbing that they have no idea how the gov't got that info.

The Patriot act itself, if you read it you'll find the provision.

I actually read it when it first was released...don't see anything now either...

Can you cite a specific provision?

I'd also note that I've not heard Gonzales cite the PA in his defense, but rather the broader war powers granted just after 9/11 to use force against terrorists.

-spence

Clinton's executive order 12949 and Carter's executive order U.S.C 1802-1804 both provided for the ability to execute searches and wiretap w/out a court order.

So, it is not just Bush that had this authority.

It specifically states that it can't be used against a US Citizen and it also has to be run by the Attorney General

a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the
Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a
court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence
information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General
certifies in writing under oath that -
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications
transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between
or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2),
or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than
the spoken communications of individuals, from property or
premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign
power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this
title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance
will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United
States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such
surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under
section 1801(h) of this title; and

if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and
any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at
least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the
Attorney General determines immediate action is required and
notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures
and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may
be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General's
certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The
Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and
shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808(a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to
the court established under section 1803(a) of this title a copy of
his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under
security measures established by the Chief Justice with the
concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the
Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless -
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the
surveillance is made under sections 1801(h)(4) and 1804 of this
title; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of
the surveillance under section 1806(f) of this title.

(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this
subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified
communication common carrier to -
(A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical
assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in
such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum
of interference with the services that such carrier is providing
its customers; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney
General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records
concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such
carrier wishes to retain.

The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such
carrier for furnishing such aid.
(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are
authorized if the President has, by written authorization,
empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court
having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge
to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law,
grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title,
approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of
a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to
grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely
as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section
unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of
communications of any United States person.

Once again I do not see anything that lists US Citizens and this only applies to Physical Searches

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES


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

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

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

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

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

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


WILLIAM J. CLINTON


THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.

Agreed. That is what Bush has been saying from the beginning. Non-US Citizens, International calls, etc.

This whole thread started because He admitted to Authorizing wiretaps on US Citizens. That's why we have all been arguing.....:chatter

Look at the links posted in the 1st entry of the thread.

I read the first and it indicated both American and Non both being on American soil. The threads title is "America Spying on Terrorists". That is what I was replying to.

I wasn't looking at this as an arguement. I thought it was a conversation. My mistake.

No no its not really an argument....bad choice of words on my part. It's what we have been "debating" about :chatter :hihi: