America spying on terrorists without court approval

[CTSurf]

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.
.

Originally Posted by spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by CTSurf

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

[MakoMike]

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.

[CTSurf]

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

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

[spence]

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

[CTSurf]

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?

[Skip N]

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!

[RIROCKHOUND]

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?

[spence]

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

-spence

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by 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

[Skip N]

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. anyone else wanna join?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Skip N

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. anyone else wanna join?

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


But at least it has some quality membership..

[Skip N]

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

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

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"

[Redsoxticket]

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"

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Source? Trust me, I've read plenty

-spence

[piemma]

Originally Posted by spence

Source? Trust me, I've read plenty

-spence

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

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by Redsoxticket

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"

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

[Flaptail]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[stripersnipr]

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

[Swimmer]

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.

[spence]

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

-spence

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by spence

Source? Trust me, I've read plenty

-spence

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

[MoroneSaxatilis]

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily...5/a01lo280.htm

[Pete_G]

Originally Posted by MoroneSaxatilis

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily...5/a01lo280.htm

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

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

[CTSurf]

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

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.