Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
26 online now:
(26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,865 Year: 16,901/19,786 Month: 1,026/2,598 Week: 272/251 Day: 0/43 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them
nator
Member (Idle past 429 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 151 of 220 (282804)
01-31-2006 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by randman
12-27-2005 1:41 PM


Like I asked you before
Even you are right and it's the Democrats' fault that George Bush failed to get the warrants from the secret court and thus spied on Americans without court oversight, does it make what he did legal/ constitutional?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by randman, posted 12-27-2005 1:41 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 11:18 AM nator has responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 152 of 220 (283137)
02-01-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by nator
01-31-2006 7:20 AM


Re: Like I asked you before
Schraf..yes, it is legal, but too stir the pot a little bit...

quote:
CQ HOMELAND SECURITY – INTELLIGENCE
Jan. 31, 2006 – 9:21 p.m.
Official: Army Has Authority to Spy on Americans
By Jeff Stein, CQ Staff
“Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on [military] intelligence components collecting U.S. person information,” the U.S.Army’s top intelligence officer said in a 2001 memo that surfaced Tuesday.

Not only that, military intelligence agencies are permitted to “receive” domestic intelligence information, even though they cannot legally “collect” it,” according to the Nov. 5, 2001, memo issued by Lt. Gen. Robert W. Noonan Jr., the deputy chief of staff for intelligence.

“MI [military intelligence] may receive information from anyone, anytime,” Noonan wrote in the memo, obtained by Secrecy News, a newsletter from the non-profit Federation of American Scientists in Washington.

Defense Department and Army regulations “allow collection about U.S. persons reasonably believed to be engaged, or about to engage, in international terrorist activities,” Noonan continued.

“Remember, merely receiving information does not constitute ‘collection’ under AR [Army Regulation] 381-10; collection entails receiving ‘for use,’ ” he added. (Army Regulation 381-10, “U.S. Army Intelligence Activities,” was reissued on Nov. 22, 2005, but had not previously been disclosed publicly.) “Army intelligence may always receive information, if only to determine its intelligence value and whether it can be collected, retained, or disseminated in accordance with governing policy,”

The distinction between “receiving” and “collecting” seems “to offer considerable leeway for domestic surveillance activities under the existing legal framework,” wrote editor Steven Aftergood in Tuesday’s edition of Secrecy News.

“This in turn makes it harder to understand why the NSA domestic surveillance program departed from previous practice.”

Aftergood was alerted to the existence of the memo by another security expert, John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, who thought that “there is enough ambiguity in the language that with a bit of creativity in managing the U.S. persons files there would have been not too much trouble” applying existing rules to the warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency.



Link

:)

This message has been edited by Tal, 02-01-2006 11:19 AM


The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by nator, posted 01-31-2006 7:20 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2006 12:32 PM Tal has responded
 Message 174 by nator, posted 02-01-2006 7:14 PM Tal has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 220 (283172)
02-01-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Tal
02-01-2006 11:18 AM


Re: Like I asked you before
Schraf..yes, it is legal

If it's legal, then why did Bush say he had to go around the law, and that the wiretapping couldn't be done under the law?

If you can't do something because a law doesn't allow it, that makes doing it illegal.

quote:
Bush: See, that's what you've got to understand. I am upholding my duty, and at the same time, doing so under the law and with the Constitution behind me. That's just very important for you to understand. Secondly, the FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world. And FISA is still an important tool. It's an important tool. And we still use that tool. But also -- and we -- look -- I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do.

That's like saying "under the law, we couldn't walk into a bank and take all the money we wanted, so we did it anyway. But it wasn't illegal, because it's 2006."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 11:18 AM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 1:28 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 154 of 220 (283184)
02-01-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
02-01-2006 12:32 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
If it's legal, then why did Bush say he had to go around the law, and that the wiretapping couldn't be done under the law?

If you can't do something because a law doesn't allow it, that makes doing it illegal.

Bypassing a law is not the same as breaking it. For instance, the Davis Beacon law and Jones Act were both bypassed after Hurricane Katrina hit. The Environmental Protection Agency suspended certain federal fuel standards in response to possible diesel and gasoline shortages. Are these laws? Yes, but there are provisions written that allow them to be bypassed in certain circumstances.

How can Bush bypass FISA?

Despite the secrecy of the ongoing domestic surveillance, the White House had Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Gen. Michael Hayden, the nation's No. 2 intelligence official, brief reporters:

•The president's constitutional authority as commander in chief covers war-related powers such as ordering the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept enemy communications wherever they originate, Gonzales said. The 9/11 attacks, he said, showed the enemy was in the USA.

•A resolution Congress passed Sept. 14, 2001, gave Bush power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to prevent further attacks, language Gonzales said implicitly authorized war-related surveillance...

He and Gonzales said it was essential to bypass the legal requirements to obtain secret court warrants for such operations because they had to move quickly to stop terrorist threats...

And from Associated Press

"It's amazing that people say to me, 'Well, he's just breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" asked Bush..

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, government officials had to prove to a secretive intelligence court that there was "probable cause" to believe that a person was tied to terrorism. Bush's program allows senior NSA officials to approve surveillance when there was "reason to believe" the call may involve al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Hayden maintained that the work was within the law. "The constitutional standard is reasonable. ... I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we are doing is reasonable," he said at the National Press Club.

And the most important point:

Hayden said the effectiveness of the surveillance operations has been eroded by public disclosure, even though the program is continuing.

Congrats to all of you lefties. You have helped the enemy. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this. If you are talking to Al Qeada, we want to know about it.

And by the way, MI can get intel on you anyway..with no warrant.

This message has been edited by Tal, 02-01-2006 01:29 PM


The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2006 12:32 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Chiroptera, posted 02-01-2006 1:59 PM Tal has responded
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2006 2:02 PM Tal has responded
 Message 160 by Omnivorous, posted 02-01-2006 2:28 PM Tal has responded
 Message 163 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-01-2006 3:34 PM Tal has responded
 Message 175 by nator, posted 02-01-2006 7:24 PM Tal has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 155 of 220 (283190)
02-01-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Tal
02-01-2006 1:28 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
quote:
I don't know what is so hard to understand about this. If you are talking to Al Qeada, we want to know about it.

Sure, as long as I get to listen in on your conversations whenever I think that there may be some problems. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this, either.


"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 1:28 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 2:19 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 220 (283192)
02-01-2006 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Tal
02-01-2006 1:28 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
If you are talking to Al Qeada, we want to know about it.

Who says we don't? I want people spying on Al Queda. I want the cops spying on criminals, too.

Why shouldn't that happen with warrants? Why should it happen against the law?

"It's amazing that people say to me, 'Well, he's just breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" asked Bush..

He didn't "brief Congress", he told a handful of congresspeople who were not allowed to object or indeed, comment at all.

Congrats to all of you lefties. You have helped the enemy.

Get real. Do you think bin Laden is so stupid he couldn't expect us to be tapping his phones?

The only one helping the enemy is Bush apologists like you. Look, I want you to think long and hard about the next president. Pretend he's one of those liberals you hate. Pretend he's totally unhinged.

Think about the powers you've just put in his hands. Do you own a gun, Tal? Do you think that's something an ultra-liberal president might want to know about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 1:28 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 2:24 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 157 of 220 (283198)
02-01-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Chiroptera
02-01-2006 1:59 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
Sure, as long as I get to listen in on your conversations whenever I think that there may be some problems. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this, either.

If talking to to Al Qeada...listen all you want.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Chiroptera, posted 02-01-2006 1:59 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by arachnophilia, posted 02-01-2006 2:24 PM Tal has not yet responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 158 of 220 (283200)
02-01-2006 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by crashfrog
02-01-2006 2:02 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
He didn't "brief Congress", he told a handful of congresspeople who were not allowed to object or indeed, comment at all.

Link? Source? News Article? Anything?

Why shouldn't that happen with warrants? Why should it happen against the law?

I've already explained bypassing. As to the answer of why...speed.

Get real. Do you think bin Laden is so stupid he couldn't expect us to be tapping his phones?

Yes, Al Qeada made phone calls to people in the US. They still do, but not as much thanks to all lefties screaming about their civil libetries disappearing.

The only one helping the enemy is Bush apologists like you.

What's your logic behind this statement? My logic is that Al Qeada now KNOWS we monitor ALL international calls. Some of the smarter ones probaly won't make as many phone calls to the US when they otherwise would. Democrats have gimped us a little on the Intel gathering.

Look, I want you to think long and hard about the next president. Pretend he's one of those liberals you hate. Pretend he's totally unhinged.

Think about the powers you've just put in his hands. Do you own a gun, Tal? Do you think that's something an ultra-liberal president might want to know about?

A Democrat is president. Al Qeada calls someone in the US. I still want that President's Intel to know about it.

You guys complain that Bush didn't connect the dots for 911. Now you complain when we try to connect the dots.


The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2006 2:02 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2006 3:27 PM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 183 by nator, posted 02-02-2006 7:12 AM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 187 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-02-2006 12:23 PM Tal has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 237 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 159 of 220 (283202)
02-01-2006 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Tal
02-01-2006 2:19 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
ok, well, i'd better listen in just in case. otherwise, i won't know if you're talking to al qaeda or not.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 2:19 PM Tal has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1227 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 160 of 220 (283205)
02-01-2006 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Tal
02-01-2006 1:28 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
Congrats to all of you lefties. You have helped the enemy. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this. If you are talking to Al Qeada, we want to know about it.

That's because you don't understand it.

Your justifications and that accusation are about as transparently stupid as Bush saying he didn't want a law against torture becuase he didn't want terrorists to know we wouldn't torture them, though of course we never would, really, never have, no kidding, heh heh.

"lefties"...like the conservative Republican senators and reps who have criticized the illegal taps? Like the former Reagan and Bush Sr. administration officials who have criticized the illegal taps? You did mean anyone who objected, right?

Bush and Gang are simply looking to cover their exposed-to-criminal law behinds. This will end up before the SCOTUS, at which time we will either reclaim our Republic of laws or lose it at last.

You may recall the initial expose of the illegal wiretaps described "thousands" of intercepts: are we really to believe that thousands of Americans are chatting up Al Qaeda on international lines? Al Qaeda has that many agents in the U.S., but haven't managed to blow up even a dog pound since 9/11? The feds didn't need more wiretaps to have forewarning about 9/11--they had it: they ignored it.

The WH cover story evolved to claim that the intercepts were precisely targeted after many conservative members of his own party began condemning the program. The taps are not targeted; the feds are listening to a torrent of calls and net traffic.

I guess if we keep giving all this comfort to the enemy, we may end up in camps--since we're in the Forever War now, our rights aren't worth the Constitution Bush wipes his butt with...

And by the way, MI can get intel on you anyway..with no warrant.

I agree, Tal: with people like Bush running the country, none of our rights are safe. He'll have to destroy our democracy to save it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 1:28 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 2:50 PM Omnivorous has responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 161 of 220 (283209)
02-01-2006 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Omnivorous
02-01-2006 2:28 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
That's because you don't understand it.

I undertand fully. We are at war. There is an enemy both overseas and in the US. When they make calls from overseas to the US, we want to know what they are saying.

Your justifications and that accusation are about as transparently stupid as Bush saying he didn't want a law against torture becuase he didn't want terrorists to know we wouldn't torture them, though of course we never would, really, never have, no kidding, heh heh.

So if Al Qeada is calling John Snuffy, you don't want to know about it?

You may recall the initial expose of the illegal wiretaps described "thousands" of intercepts: are we really to believe that thousands of Americans are chatting up Al Qaeda on international lines? Al Qaeda has that many agents in the U.S., but haven't managed to blow up even a dog pound since 9/11?

Maybe that's because we've been listening to Al Qeada conversations since then?

Hello.

Bush added: "Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."

This message has been edited by Tal, 02-01-2006 02:59 PM

This message has been edited by Tal, 02-01-2006 03:26 PM


The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men

Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Omnivorous, posted 02-01-2006 2:28 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Omnivorous, posted 02-01-2006 3:50 PM Tal has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 220 (283212)
02-01-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Tal
02-01-2006 2:24 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
I've already explained bypassing. As to the answer of why...speed.

We know from the Administration's own comments that speed was not an issue; that hey had no difficulty getting the warrants that they needed from the standard FISA process. This was the rationale they gave, after all, for opposing amendments to the FISA law back in 2003.

So either they were lying then, or they're lying now. Which do you believe it is?

They still do, but not as much thanks to all lefties screaming about their civil libetries disappearing.

And you think that's a bad thing? That we're restricted Al-Queda's communications into the US? The FBI thinks it's a good thing that the illegal tapping program has been restricted; they were being inundated with thousands of useless "tips" from the NSA - tips that wasted valuable time to sort out.

What's your logic behind this statement?

Why do the terrorists attack us? Because we're a free and liberal society.

If I were to go back in time and speak to you the day of 9/11 and tell you about the future, I imagine the conversation would go something like this:

Crash: Tal! I bid you greetings from the future.

Tal: Oh, woe are we! We're truly on the brink of an epic struggle against the forces of terror. Are dark times ahead?

Crash: Indeed. Within 5 years, we'll have casualty rates of 15 soldiers a week; our press will offer nothing but the propaganda our leaders wish them to promulgate; and our government will eavesdrop on our private phone conversations absent any kind of judicial oversight or regulation, and there will be no consequences when they finally reveal this behavior.

Tal: ... Oh. So, you're saying we lost, then.

Terrorists strike the West because they're threatened by our free and liberal society. Anything that makes our society less free and less liberal - like a precident for ignoring civil rights altogether - aids terrorism. It's exactly what they want us to do.

My logic is that Al Qeada now KNOWS we monitor ALL international calls.

It's idiotic to assume that they didn't already know. Especially since we gave it away years ago at Tora Bora.

A Democrat is president. Al Qeada calls someone in the US. I still want that President's Intel to know about it.

I do too. But I don't trust the President - any president - to restrict the tapping, on his own, to just the terrorists. Do you?

Do you know why we have FISA in the first place, Tal?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 2:24 PM Tal has not yet responded

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 4093 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 163 of 220 (283213)
02-01-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Tal
02-01-2006 1:28 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
So basically what you are saying is that the president now has war-time powers forever and the constitution is suspended.

You can not win a war on terror and declare the end to hostilities. So either the constituion is permenanently suspended or we aren't really at war.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 1:28 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 3:44 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 164 of 220 (283216)
02-01-2006 3:41 PM


It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack –- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.

So let's see, he has authority based on the Constitution, previous Presidents have used it, federal courts have appoved it, and members of Congress have been kept informed.

What is illegal about this agian?


Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2006 3:42 PM Tal has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 220 (283217)
02-01-2006 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Tal
02-01-2006 3:41 PM


So let's see, he has authority based on the Constitution, previous Presidents have used it, federal courts have appoved it, and members of Congress have been kept informed.

What is illegal about this agian?

The fact that none of those things are true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 3:41 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Tal, posted 02-01-2006 3:45 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019