64% of Americans support phonecall tapping

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Bush, Zendari... why don't you guys just go back to 1-900 numbers.

Mommy and daddy had those numbers blocked.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Okay, to put things more broad, the executive branch has the sole power of war and of command of the military.

Congress never declared war.

We are using the military (war or not) to fight terrorists. Fighting terrorists involves gathering information, spying, etc. Terrorist activity and information from Al-Qaeda are making their way into the United States.

If it involves spying on U.S. citizens, then by all means go get a secret court order from FISA, even retroactively.

Fighting terrorists does NOT and should NOT involve trampling what this country was founded on [for the ignorant, the Constitution], the very thing the terrorists would most like us to destroy.

If you're for this unconstitutional spying on U.S. citizens, then you're siding with the terrorists.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Okay, to put things more broad, the executive branch has the sole power of war and of command of the military. We are using the military (war or not) to fight terrorists. Fighting terrorists involves gathering information, spying, etc. Terrorist activity and information from Al-Qaeda are making their way into the United States.

Great thinking, Beavis! Let's just let the Bushwhackos destroy everything the country stands for in the name of "protecting" it. We won't have to wait for foreign terrorists because our own administration terrorists will do it for them before them nasty foreigners get here. :roll:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Jadow
... The lib judges Clinton appointed actually do think like that.

And that is where you lose all credibility by exposing yourself as a blindly partisan tool. Feel free to refute this by offering something objective and factual to support your allegation.

 

[BlancoNino]

the executive branch has the sole power of war and of command of the military.

I understand the courts need to protect the rights of citizens, but I also also understand the need for our military to fight terrorists without a neutral wedge.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

That's if you assume that everyone, at every level of the executive branch, has only the best motives, and nothing but fighting terrorist in mind. If you do, you're simply stupid.

Are you suggesting judicial involvement in this war and in every future war? That's probably how France fought the Germans in World War 2.

When it comes to domestic surveillance, HELL YES! Welcome to America. If you find our Constitutional civil liberties so terrifying, perhaps you should consider some nice totalitarian regime where Big Brother can tuck you in every night.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
the executive branch has the sole power of war and of command of the military.

I understand the courts need to protect the rights of citizens, but I also also understand the need for our military to fight terrorists without a neutral wedge.

Command of the military is not the same as invading the privacy of US citizens.

The terrorists want us to destroy the Constitution, and people like you are helping them do that.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
the executive branch has the sole power of war and of command of the military.

I understand the courts need to protect the rights of citizens, but I also also understand the need for our military to fight terrorists without a neutral wedge.

Since when does the military fight terrorists within the United States? Is this another law we're going to ignore for King George?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
the executive branch has the sole power of war and of command of the military.

I understand the courts need to protect the rights of citizens, but I also also understand the need for our military to fight terrorists without a neutral wedge.

Since when does the military fight terrorists within the United States? Is this another law we're going to ignore for King George?

Hmmm. Did the police at Pearl Harbor attack the Japanese or did we? Our military is fighting terrorists....abroad or not and they have a lot more intelligence and resources than the police.


By the way, can anyone point me to what part of the constitution gaurantees the right of privacy? The right to privacy isn't in the 4th amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't apply.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734

It was not by chance that there was no provision for congressional oversight of intelligence matters in the National Security Act of 1947.

What now? link

GENERAL CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. [50 U.S.C. 413] (a)(1) The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this title.

(2) Nothing in this title shall be construed as requiring the approval of the congressional intelligence committees as a condition precedent to the initiation of any significant anticipated intelligence activity.

(b) The President shall ensure that any illegal intelligence activity is reported promptly to the congressional intelligence committees, as well as any corrective action that has been taken or is planned in connection with such illegal activity.

(c) The President and the congressional intelligence committees shall each establish such procedures as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.

(d) The House of Representatives and the Senate shall each establish, by rule or resolution of such House, procedures to protect from unauthorized disclosure all classified information, and all information relating to intelligence sources and methods, that is furnished to the congressional intelligence committees or to Members of Congress under this title. Such procedures shall be established in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence. In accordance with such procedures, each of the congressional intelligence committees shall promptly call to the attention of its respective House, or to any appropriate committee or committees of its respective House, any matter relating to intelligence activities requiring the attention of such House or such committee or committees.

(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authority to withhold information from the congressional intelligence committees on the grounds that providing the information to the congressional intelligence committees would constitute the unauthorized disclosure of classified information or information relating to intelligence sources and methods.

(f) As used in this section, the term "intelligence activities" includes covert actions as defined in section 503(e), and includes financial intelligence activities.

BlancoNino, care to defend your OPINION piece that you posted?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
the executive branch has the sole power of war and of command of the military.

I understand the courts need to protect the rights of citizens, but I also also understand the need for our military to fight terrorists without a neutral wedge.

Since when does the military fight terrorists within the United States? Is this another law we're going to ignore for King George?

Hmmm. Did the police at Pearl Harbor attack the Japanese or did we? Our military is fighting terrorists....abroad or not and they have a lot more intelligence and resources than the police.

When the terrorist fleet attacks, I'll concede your point. Until then you're just shilling for King George. It is not necessary, effective, or desirable to use the military domestically to fight small cells of terrorists. We have excellent law enforcement resources for that purpose.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
You live completely legal? Never used Kazaa or Napster, never sped, never made an antiestablisment statement during a phone call, never stole a single thing in your life, never kicked a dog, never jaywalked, never cheated on your taxes, never lied under oath, never got into a fight, drank while underage, smoked a joint, nothing? God your life must be boring.

All moot points. NSA isn't looking for petty crap like that. Unless you are conducting Terrorist activities on international lines you are just fine.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: judasmachine
You live completely legal? Never used Kazaa or Napster, never sped, never made an antiestablisment statement during a phone call, never stole a single thing in your life, never kicked a dog, never jaywalked, never cheated on your taxes, never lied under oath, never got into a fight, drank while underage, smoked a joint, nothing? God your life must be boring.

All moot points. NSA isn't looking for petty crap like that. Unless you are conducting Terrorist activities on international lines you are just fine.

And how did Nixon use his wiretaps? This is why FISA exists, to keep a check on abuses. That goes for all presidents of all parties. This isn't a question of right ot left, it's right or wrong.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jadow
I 100% support what the pres is doing in this regard.

A known and legally wiretapped al queda agend in Saudi Arabia calls a mystery number in NY. 1 minute later the number he called in NY makes a call to a number in Seattle. According to some interpretations of the current rules, the feds can not wiretap the call from NY to Seattle because it is a domestic call without a warrant. Some warrants have taken over 3 MONTHS to get!

A little late after Safeco field is in flames and 70,000 people are dead.

I hate to rain on your parade, but nothing Bush has done even comes close to addressing that particular situation. The warrentless wiretaps being debated, and supposedly carried out by the NSA, do not cover domestic only calls. FISA rules would allow for immediate wiretapping of the call from SA to NY, covered by a retroactive warrent obtained up to 72 hours later (FISA warrents are quite fast). The NY to Seattle call still would require a warrent, nothing Bush has done changes that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I don't believe the courts should interfere with fighting a war.

Shouldn't interfere with that Constitution thing either, should they.

The executive branch has the constitutional power to be the sole power to wage war. The reasons for wiretapping are to gather information about terrorists. We are at war with terrorists. This action shouldn't even involve the courts.

Yes, but you'll notice that this is not simply "waging war", as you put it, it's waging war on US persons. Unless martial law was declared and I missed it, the executive branch does not have sole authority to do anything regarding US persons covered by US law.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Jadow
I 100% support what the pres is doing in this regard.

A known and legally wiretapped al queda agend in Saudi Arabia calls a mystery number in NY. 1 minute later the number he called in NY makes a call to a number in Seattle. According to some interpretations of the current rules, the feds can not wiretap the call from NY to Seattle because it is a domestic call without a warrant. Some warrants have taken over 3 MONTHS to get!

A little late after Safeco field is in flames and 70,000 people are dead.

But it can be bypassed and then obtain one within 72 hours. But then the courts won't give one to you because of some stupid technicality and by law you must let the terrorists go free.

Have you seen the statistics on FISA warrents? Very few of them are denied, and I can't imagine it happens very often if someone is so clearly a terrorist.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Okay, to put things more broad, the executive branch has the sole power of war and of command of the military. We are using the military (war or not) to fight terrorists. Fighting terrorists involves gathering information, spying, etc. Terrorist activity and information from Al-Qaeda are making their way into the United States.

The military does not have police authority, however, which is what is required to arrest, shoot, spy on, interrogate, etc, US persons.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
the executive branch has the sole power of war and of command of the military.

I understand the courts need to protect the rights of citizens, but I also also understand the need for our military to fight terrorists without a neutral wedge.

No, it doesn't. Congress is the only branch that can issue a declaration of war.

 

[wirelessenabled]

The NSA is wiretapping everyone. The notion that just conversations between "known terrorists" and the US is about as ludicrious as the notion that all the poor bastages held in Gitmo are a serious threat to the USA.

Cheney/Bush and co-conspirators believe EVERYONE is a terrorist and thus all are subject to NSA listening.

Just listen to that madman Cheney's speeches.

 

[thesurge]

also you dont need manpower persay...it's called echelon. everything is recorded and certain conversations are redflagged for further analysis

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
the executive branch has the sole power of war and of command of the military.

I understand the courts need to protect the rights of citizens, but I also also understand the need for our military to fight terrorists without a neutral wedge.

No, it doesn't. Congress is the only branch that can issue a declaration of war.

And who do we declare war on specifically? Radical Islam? Isn't that too open for debate? This is what makes it so tough.

 

[conjur]

How about no one? How about trying to do the right thing and getting to the sources of the reasons why terrorism exists, specifically, radically distorted views of Islam and anger toward the west, specifically, the US?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I don't believe the courts should interfere with fighting a war.

Shouldn't interfere with that Constitution thing either, should they.

The executive branch has the constitutional power to be the sole power to wage war. The reasons for wiretapping are to gather information about terrorists. We are at war with terrorists. This action shouldn't even involve the courts.

You are missing the point: Those who are wiretapped may or may not be terrorists. The fact that the government targets someone for surveillance doesn't mean that that someone has done anything wrong or should be investigated.

You are equating "those who are being investigated" with "terrorists" (or terrorist supporters). Given the numbers acknowledged by the Adminstration (each year 500" to "thousands" investigated so far under the President's warrantless search program), it is preposterous to presume that any but a tiny minority of these individuals are terrorists (or their supporters) If they are - and if there's reasonable evidence to support that contention - where are the hundreds or thousands of prosecutions of these people? The point is, almost all of those investigated are NOT terrorists - all that has happened is that individuals have innocently done SOMETHING that has attracted the attention of the U.S. government - and any fair minded person knows that's the case.

In its zeal to pursue terrorists (and knowing that it will be judged on the results), the executive branch can cast a very wide net. Absent oversight by an impartial arbiter (such as the FISA court), MANY more innocent people than is necessary will have their private lives intruded upon - their private information collected, organized, made broadly available within government agencies, and NOT destroyed when the investigation proves fruitless (the Administration has acknowledged that this is what is happening). I'm not even getting into what happens when the government's actions end up actually causing harm to the innocent - jobs lost, legal fees that have to be paid, psychological stress.

There is absolutely no reason why the Executive cannot use the FISA protocols - modified, where necessary, if there are inefficiencies that might impede the Executive's reasonable needs - to combat terrorism. But the fact is, despite being INVITED by Congress in September, 2001, to provide a list of wanted FISA modifications, the Bush Administration just went off on its own, in secret, and did what it wanted, claiming that it was given this almost unlimited power by the September 12 Congressional authorization to "use all necessary force" (and also claiming, perversely, that it cannot be controlled by acts of Congress in time of war - please explain how one can be granted powers by a body that one claims cannot limit one's power).

No one disagrees that suspected terrorists should be investigated. The only disagreement is over whether the Executive branch should be subject to reasonable oversight. So far, I have not heard ONE plausible justification as to why operating under FISA isn't reasonable oversight.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Jadow
I 100% support what the pres is doing in this regard.

A known and legally wiretapped al queda agend in Saudi Arabia calls a mystery number in NY. 1 minute later the number he called in NY makes a call to a number in Seattle. According to some interpretations of the current rules, the feds can not wiretap the call from NY to Seattle because it is a domestic call without a warrant. Some warrants have taken over 3 MONTHS to get!

A little late after Safeco field is in flames and 70,000 people are dead.

But it can be bypassed and then obtain one within 72 hours. But then the courts won't give one to you because of some stupid technicality and by law you must let the terrorists go free.

This is a preposterous assertion. The figures provided by the Justice department indicate that out of something like 28,000 applications for warrants over the entire history of the FISA court, exactly FIVE have been denied.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Do you think everyone is going to be monitored all the time? Do they have the man-power to do this? No. It's no different than getting a search-warrant and I'm sure you'll have to have damn good reason to get it too. I don't have anything to hide anyway.

If it's no different, why not just get the damn warrent?

Telephone conversations don't last forever and warrants take time whereas posession of items last longer. Cops also don't need warrants if the dogs smell something suspicious.

Yes, warrants DO take time : about 24 hours from the special court set up to do it.

I find it VERY hard to think that our freedoms are worth saving that 24 hours.

But the REAL kicker is that a warrantless tap can be used for all KINDS of things, especially blackmail, spying on political opponents, even gathering competitive business information for personal use. Wiretapping is GOOD - but non-identified, non-warranted wiretapping is BAD. Too many games the people involved can play, and there is NO review of what they do or use it for...

Future Shock