WAR: Bush Allowed NSA to Spy on U.S. International Calls

Originally posted by zappafan1
Amendment IV

"... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

REPLY: Please note here that there is nothing mentioned here about a much-touted "right to privacy." One should also be aware that this has been changed since it was written: Amendment 4 calls for specifying a location.... like a dresser or closet; now it is merely a street address. The "thing(s) to be seized has been watered down to mean anything similar or related. Where's all the complaining about that?

It would be an unlawful search and seizure. The search is on private communications, the seizure is any taping and/or capturing copies.

That would be the argument.

Originally posted by BlackThought

Do insider trading because if I get caught I could go to jail (Bill Frist)

REPLY: Frist didn't, 'nor did Martha Stewert.

Accept gifts from lobbyist because it is against the law and saying “everyone is doing it” should not get you off. (Over half the congress)

REPLY: ....a good reason for getting the "Fair Tax" passed; all the lobbyists would be out of work.

Take food out of poor persons mouth to give to already rich people because you want to be seen as a team player in the power circles. (Congress & the Executive)

REPLY: Puuleeeze .... there are no truly "poor" people in America. What happens is just the opposite; we take from the rich and give to the poor. No other country on earth gives so much, or gives as many opportunities, to those who refuse to help themselves.

There was a 400-page report on the spying of the military, FBI and undisclosed departments of espionage in America on protesting groups. (Most are Peace groups!!)

REPLY: Follow the money; most "peace" groups are anti-American groups who get their money from pro-communist/marxist zealots.

"... The concentration camps of Guantanamo oh I’m sorry Asian Americans during world war two. My question did they have camps for German descended Americans during that time?

REPLY: History shows that there was a nationwide Japanese intelligence network, and the camps were that quickest way to put an end to them. And you can bet your butt that, if it was discovered that there was a german network of the same type, for sure Roosevelt/Truman would have sent them to camps; and rightfully so.


"... Maybe if they changed up their foreign policy then things might be different."

REPLY: You mean the policy of helping to help people in other countries get out from under tyrannical rule? I think you should ask the Germans, British and french (and many others) if they agree with that.

"....It would be an unlawful search and seizure. The search is on private communications, the seizure is any taping and/or capturing copies."

Actually, the fourth Amendment does not apply; you are correct. As it relates to FISA: Title 50 US Code; Chapter 36, subchapter 1, section 1802, titled "Electronic Surveilance Without Court Order" enacted 1978, (I'm paraphrasing here) allows for gathering information from said sources if they are from America to another country, or visa versa. Basically, wiretapping our enemies.
The same code DOES require a court order if the communications are between two (or more) people within the US borders.

With advent of CB radios and cell phones, et-al, your communications are not private in the least. I, and thousands of others, can have a Yuasa receiver and pick up on most any conversation from "transmitters."
Much the same is a conversation between two or more people, in public. I do not break the law if I happen to overhear part of, or the entire, conversation.
Granted, in this instance, since I do not work for the intelligence community, it WOULD be illegal for me to tape or otherwise "capture" it.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by zappafan1]

I guess you did not see the people in New Orleans – Katrina episode or the poverty levels in the southern states. In either case they are poor now. There are poor people in America. Every country has poor people.


I said all that to point out our LOL “leaders” are dodging court cases on a daily basis. Getting off on technicalities like defining what “Is” means. Majority of Americans agree that congressional politicians are corrupt.

The countries you mention do not really care about democracy because they were and still are colonial powers. They have subjugated cultures in other parts of the world. If America is such a democratic place why can’t Puerto Rico become a state? It is still a territory...hmmm
[Quote]: REPLY: Follow the money; most "peace" groups are anti-American groups who get their money from pro-communist/Marxist zealots.[quote/]

And not every peace group is against America and is not funded by outside zealot forces. That is like me saying Christian support groups are support by fundamentally zealot right wing groups. After that you are overlooking the boundaries of what illegal searches are. These people are American they have a right to protest as much as you do.

And I do not care even if someone said lock all white people up in America to stop the progression of fascism on the world. I would defend them by saying it cannot be a whole group of people committing this act.

BTW a fair tax would be all income taxed not just up to 75k a year. We would not have any problems with education, healthcare, and infrastructure of this nation.




[edit on 12/09-2005 by BlackThought]

There are two separate topics being debated here; the act of "spying" and the act of "leaking". Imo, feelings about spying are stronger than feelings about leaking, but by not by a wide margin.

In some cases, certain questionable acts must be performed in order to leak a story. This is acceptable to those who cry loudest about individual rights; it is, after all, the only defense to breaking the law when gathering the info to leak. The act of spying is never tolerated by these same folks, however. All spying has the theoretical potential to infringe upon our rights, and how can you argue against individual rights?

I'd like to see more concrete examples of a person's rights being stripped away due to spying, and the consequences of that. The possibility is there, is realize, but are there any personal examples that people can share?

Once again, imo spying and leaking share some of the same characteristics. To me, hiding behind rights can be very dangerous. After all, there is an adage that says "Patriotism is the last bastion of the scoundrel". We must be wary of those that wave that banner too much.

The second topic being discussed here ( and often ignored ) is the act of leaking a story. Is it the right thing to do every time? No, not imo. I am heartened by the number of voices here who call for the prosecution of those involved in a leak.

Spying is the same as leaking. It must be done judiciously. It must not be done with the intent of eroding our rights. But there are times when it does need to be done. And sometimes, it is not possible, or desirable, to get a warrant beforehand. Oh, wait! Our laws already provide for that? Never mind.

I suggest that reponses to this thread state whether the poster is for or against spying and/or leaking info in all cases. That will help all to understand both sides of an issue.



[edit on 21-12-2005 by jsobecky]

[edit on 21-12-2005 by jsobecky]

I guess you did not see the people in New Orleans – Katrina episode or the poverty levels in the southern states. In either case they are poor now. There are poor people in America. Every country has poor people.

REPLY: The people who live in N.O are indeed poor, now, but before katrina.... that remains debatable; As I mentioned in another thread, look at every city/state in America where there is a large number of "poor" people, and you will see that Democrats have been in charge for many, many years. So many poor people in the dome... who have been on the government dole for generations, and who trusted their elected government (local) to "take care" of them. Then, when the doo doo hit the fan, it turns out they were not included in the evac. plans made by those same officials... and the same officials who delayed te response of FEMA and the Red Cross.
There are "poor" people in mississippi, too, but you never heard of major problems there, did you? Wait for the thread titled "Poor People in America."

"...dodging court cases on a daily basis.

REPLY: ..... most of which are only allegations for political purpose.

"... If America is such a democratic place why can’t Puerto Rico become a state?

REPLY: That is for them to decide, and they still have to follow our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We cannot force them to become a state.

"... And not every peace group is against America and is not funded by outside zealot forces.

REPLY: I did not say every group, but the majority are; International Answer is an example of large one.

"... And I do not care even if someone said lock all white people up in America to stop the progression of fascism on the world. I would defend them by saying it cannot be a whole group of people committing this act."

REPLY: We are practically the only country that HAS fought against fascism for decades.

"... BTW a fair tax would be all income taxed not just up to 75k a year.

REPLY: No... that's not even close to being correct. NO-ONE would be taxed on income. What you wou8ld et is just your check, with no Federal deductions at all; there would be a national sales tax of around 23%, and only on NEW items. And, people making at or below the poverty level would get a rebate on taxes spent. It's revenue neutral. Our economy would skyrocket.

We would not have any problems with education, healthcare, and infrastructure of this nation.

REPLY: that does not address the issue that government funding for education, healthcare, etc, is un-Constitutional.

(edit for correction to code)

[edit on 21-12-2005 by zappafan1]

Originally posted by jsobecky
There are two separate topics being debated here; the act of "spying" and the act of "leaking". Imo, feelings about spying are stronger than feelings about leaking, but by not by a wide margin.

In some cases, certain questionable acts must be performed in order to leak a story. This is acceptable to those who cry loudest about individual rights; it is, after all, the only defense to breaking the law when gathering the info to leak. The act of spying is never tolerated by these same folks, however. All spying has the theoretical potential to infringe upon our rights, and how can you argue against individual rights?

I'd like to see more concrete examples of a person's rights being stripped away due to spying, and the consequences of that. The possibility is there, is realize, but are there any personal examples that people can share?

Once again, imo spying and leaking share some of the same characteristics. To me, hiding behind rights can be very dangerous. After all, there is an adage that says "Patriotism is the last bastion of the scoundrel". We must be wary of those that wave that banner too much.

The second topic being discussed here ( and often ignored ) is the act of leaking a story. Is it the right thing to do every time? No, not imo. I am heartened by the number of voices here who call for the prosecution of those involved in a leak.

Spying is the same as leaking. It must be done judiciously. It must not be done with the intent of eroding our rights. But there are times when it does need to be done. And sometimes, it is not possible, or desirable, to get a warrant beforehand. Oh, wait! Our laws already provide for that? Never mind.

I suggest that reponses to this thread state whether the poster is for or against spying and/or leaking info in all cases. That will help all to understand both sides of an issue.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by jsobecky]

[edit on 21-12-2005 by jsobecky]

REPLY: I am one of those who share your feelings pertaing to those who leak classified information.

So many people worry that they will be listened to. Currently, there are 300+ phone numbers known to be used by people who are willing to do harm (terrorism) against America and it's citizens; people for who records and intercepts show they have been in contact with "the enemy." THEY are the ones who are being targeted.... and rightfully so.
Will mistakes be made..... sure, it is probable there will be a few mistakes, and I'm sure they would be compensated in some way.
Is there the possibility that the same law will be mis-used by a future president (already has... the Clintons) again, yes... and it is THAT which the people here should be complaining about.

The issue at hand is a "damned if you do, and damned if you dont" kind of thing. If Bush didn't do it, and something major happened, people would complain, and rightfully so. But since he HAS used the law to do what must be done.... and which HAS prevented at least three acts of terrorism from occuring since 9-11, then it was something that should be, and must done. It is his obligation to do so in a time of war.

I am for the country of America in am not for any group of individuals like the democrats or republicans (get rid of both and start over for what I care). I am for the rule of fairness. Not for the survival of the fittest (which is unfethard capitalism). Sometimes the country is more important than the politicians in it. That is why I like the Asian Culture dealing with leaders. It is not about the leader it is about the overall plan so leaders come and leaders go. It is about who is effective overall not what party they belong to. I see people defending the democrats and republicans positions to the letter without much legroom to see that sometime both are self centering and do not allow outside debate. That is what is stagnating about America. In other democracies there are more the 2 political parties. So what happened in 2002 would not have happened and we as a country would not be in this situation NOW.

And again the pentagons papers is a collection of information that make the author more of a patriot like the founding fathers as any of the yahoos on the hill.

There are times when transparency is better than secrecy. Our government leaders refuse to see their mistakes so I am affected negatively because of their arrogance. In the fact that as diverse as America is we cant get an effective third party something is wrong with that. I have to fit my interest under a lobbing arm in Washington. That itself in not democratic. And the funny thing about it is that not America is breaking international law of a daily basis like we are of part of this earth.

I should not have to feel like I did something wrong when I do basic things like talk on the phone. See my Muslim family or cruise the Internet. You are not free if you have to look at everyone as a potential terrorist. The private individual should have privacy and the freedom to pursue happiness without the shadow of warrent less searches. Confiscating items in you house while you are not even home. And still they do not need to tell you.

There are Americans held as combat detainees. Where are their rights? Before you open your mouth you are BORN WITH RIGHTS.

Anyway the quitting of the secret court judge, the Padia case going sour are more signs of being over the top in security. Now are you going to say the judge is unpatriotic? The judge is the one paid to look at these issues and he said if that is what they think they need to so then the warrant courts are just a sham. The funny thing is there has only been one case where they disagreed with the security agency last year, yet GW and the congress did what they did?

Read the commission of Katrina response in Washington. Then tell me its debatable. I see you have never been hungry in your life. Must be nice…

Those court cases are real with real evidence against them. If they were charges given to a “normal citizen” they would go to jail for years. Republican or democrat. Christian or Jewish

BTW Puerto Rico has been trying to become a state for over 30 years but the congress has to vote for them to vote on whether to become a state. And years and counting they still have not. hmmmm

Originally posted by BlackThought
There are Americans held as combat detainees. Where are their rights? Before you open your mouth you are BORN WITH RIGHTS.

As such, historically when at war or in a conflict and the enemy is taken in the combat zone or taken captive, thus becoming a combat detainee or POW or enemy combatant, rights come into play where, other than being treated humanely under international law? There is a distinct difference between inherent natural rights and rights as applied or in relation to war and conflict.






seekerof

Someone on FOX just brought up a great point which I don't think has been brought up here yet (although I haven't read every post):

When you travel overseas, upon your return the President (through his Customs & Immigration agencies) has the full, plenary, and Constitutionally settled right to strip search your person, search all your bags, read any papers you have, fully interrogate you about your overseas trip, etc. without any warrant or probable cause. Likewise, any postal mail you receive from overseas can be searched and read without any warrant or probable cause.

Why would overseas electronic communications be any different constitutionally?

I think it depends on what happens after the search. Look at the Pidia case they said dirty bomb 3 years ago then they charge him on completely different criminal charges in Florida

If it becomes a fishing trip because of prejudice or a “hunch” instead of investigation of creditable information then to me it is unlawful. BTW Minorities are search much more that European people. That ain't right. Criminality has nothing to do with skin color.



[edit on 12/09-2005 by BlackThought]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Someone on FOX just brought up a great point which I don't think has been brought up here yet (although I haven't read every post):

When you travel overseas, upon your return the President (through his Customs & Immigration agencies) has the full, plenary, and Constitutionally settled right to strip search your person, search all your bags, read any papers you have, fully interrogate you about your overseas trip, etc. without any warrant or probable cause. Likewise, any postal mail you receive from overseas can be searched and read without any warrant or probable cause.

Why would overseas electronic communications be any different constitutionally?

Due process. You may not be able to avoid a rubber glove at the airport, but you know it's there. You know who is searching you, why they are searching you, and you know what evidence they are obtaining from you, and you also can appeal accordingly. Wiretaps, by their nature, do not lend themselves to due process of any sort, so they are subjected to much closer scrutiny.

Originally posted by dgtempe
And you know that this refers to people like me and many millions who want to preserve our rights.

Could it be Titor is saying this about the other half?

NO!

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Someone on FOX just brought up a great point which I don't think has been brought up here yet (although I haven't read every post):

When you travel overseas, upon your return the President (through his Customs & Immigration agencies) has the full, plenary, and Constitutionally settled right to strip search your person, search all your bags, read any papers you have, fully interrogate you about your overseas trip, etc. without any warrant or probable cause. Likewise, any postal mail you receive from overseas can be searched and read without any warrant or probable cause.

Why would overseas electronic communications be any different constitutionally?

REPLY: not the president.... Congress; The president can sign the law, or he might not.

The Postal Service is a private corporation, and can do what it feels it must to protect it's employees, and people in general.

Again, if the lwas were not in place, and something happened, then people would whine that nothing was done to prevent it.

Also, in 2002, cell-phone surveillance (of a vey limited nature, to and from foreign countries), helped prevent the bombing of the Golden Gate Bridge. No names (people) were mentioned. As was in the news, security was set up very openly on both ends of the bridge surrounding the dates of the mentioned bombing. Continued surveillance detailed the cancellation of the attack, and led to the arrest of a few responsible, which found enough material to, indeed, do great damage to the bridge.

No court order was possible because a persons name was not specified (at first), yet the surveillance prevented a bombing, and eventually arrests were made. So.... was the surveillance a good thing or a bad thing?

(edit for spelling)

[edit on 23-12-2005 by zappafan1]

Originally posted by BlackThought
I think it depends on what happens after the search. Look at the Pidia case they said dirty bomb 3 years ago then they charge him on completely different criminal charges in Florida

If it becomes a fishing trip because of prejudice or a “hunch” instead of investigation of creditable information then to me it is unlawful. BTW Minorities are search much more that European people. That ain't right. Criminality has nothing to do with skin color.

[edit on 12/09-2005 by BlackThought]

As for Padia, new evidence could add to or change the charges.

Kobar Towers, the USS Cole, and at least nine others.... all related to Muslim men (dark skin; minorities) between the ages of 18 and 35.
Is we haD been "racial profiling" on 9-10, there might not have been a 9-11.

(edited for content)

[edit on 23-12-2005 by zappafan1]

Wow!!! Go away for a week or a little more, come back and what?

This discussion has turned from discussion to a Mulligan Stew ... Can't even make heads or tales out of where the original concept of the thread went.

I think, and I hate to say it out loud, that the last closest to a comment on the original intent of the thread was jsobecky (wrong, but still cogent)!

Sorry JSObecky... Just goofing with you...

You can split it seven ways from Sunday, or even eight or nine, if you've a mind, but the original question, as I understood it was regarding the right of the President to pull off questionable, if not outright damned illegal wiretaps on American Citizens.

I've decided to sit back and watch him for a while longer, but I hope that when the rest finally decide to take action, he hasn't converted into the dictator that we could all grow to love and worship.

And for those who don't know me, or haven't read prior posts on this thread, I am NOT anti-Repub nor am I anti-Dem... I am anti-Moron, anti-Crooked, and anti-anyone who is willing to run roughshod over the people, rights, privileges, Constitution, and Bill of Rights of this proud republic in the name of profit and control ... Thus I AM anti-Bushie and the wild bunch.

Stone Soup

Originally posted by sigung86
Wow!!! Go away for a week or a little more, come back and what?

This discussion has turned from discussion to a Mulligan Stew ...

Nothing new. Stories like these inevitably inspire members to take their pet dogmas for a walk.

As is almost inevitably the case, nothing will actually come of the discussion per se.

However, at least it does feel good to be able to talk to somebody about it, and when it comes to that, we do it up right.

Now, what -- or who -- else can we throw into the pot?

from sigung
You can split it seven ways from Sunday, or even eight or nine, if you've a mind, but the original question, as I understood it was regarding the right of the President to pull off questionable, if not outright damned illegal wiretaps on American Citizens.

I've decided to sit back and watch him for a while longer, but I hope that when the rest finally decide to take action, he hasn't converted into the dictator that we could all grow to love and worship.

I, along with others here, seem to have several sticking points on this.

On the face of it, the answer seems clear and easy. No man is above the law, not even the POTUS. Guilty.

On the other hand, we have this issue of past administrations doing the very same thing. How did they manage to pull it off without swinging from the yardarm? Many others in power must have decided to look the other way.

Some say it doesn't matter. Two wrongs don't make a right. That is what we teach our youngsters, isn't it?

Guilty but not responsible? Or not guilty but responsible?

What about the NSA's role? Do they have a duty to disobey an illegal order?

Finally, I can't help but be influenced by the consensus of many lawyers, judges, and politicians, that Bush did nothing illegal here. There of course are dissenting voices, but there are a lot of views, from all sides of the aisle, that say nothing illegal was done.

Originally posted by jsobecky

.
...
Finally, I can't help but be influenced by the consensus of many lawyers, judges, and politicians, that Bush did nothing illegal here. There of course are dissenting voices, but there are a lot of views, from all sides of the aisle, that say nothing illegal was done.

My next question is, if everything is on the up and up, why are so many people who are just as intelligent as those who say it is legal, saying it isn't?

Just seems that we are kind of stretching a gnat's butt over a rain barrel to prove a point of legality vs illegality. As I recall from some reading and watching Dub's press conference last week, he had the tools in place, e.g. the secret court that is, essentially at his beck and call. And it is, apparently, built for the very purpose he skirted around.

I don't know JSObecky... I know I said I would give him time to come up with something, and I hope it isn't along a partisan line tac ... But I just get the mpression, as I'm sure you've noticed from prior posts, that "We The People" are, once again, falling prey to a large hornswaggle.

from sigung My next question is, if everything is on the up and up, why are so many people who are just as intelligent as those who say it is legal, saying it isn't?

A lot of that is from partisan politics. Not all, but a lot of it.

Then again, I can shoot that down with the fact that the NYT allegedly sat on the story for a year before releasing it. Granted, the admin asked them to delay it, but what has changed between now and then? Risen's book deal? Nah. The NYT finally came to a conclusion that what the admin was doing was illegal? I doubt it. The PA being up for renewal? Possibly. The fear of being scooped by a rival paper? Very possibly.

But I'm still waiting for an answer to the NSA's role in this. Did they conclude the request ( order ) from the WH to eavesdrop was illegal or routine? It seems like they considered it just another day at the office, Otherwise they had a duty to disobey an illegal order.

Whoa... time to see how Santa''s doing with the local NORAD coverage of his journey! Can't wait can't wait!