It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 11
3
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
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.

This is still under debate.
Personally, till proven otherwise by legal means, there was no "damned illegal wiretaps" done.

From a University of Chicago Professor, Cass Sunstein, over the arguments surrounding the NSA wiretaps, backing up the Bush Administration's claim that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF] buttresses the inherent power of the president in a time of war to conduct surveillance of foreign powers communicating with their agents in America who are American citizens:
Presidential Wiretapping: Disaggregating the Issues

And from this blog, which assembled and lays out crucial case laws and statutes for the lazy media and such:
On the Legality of the NSA Electronic Intercept Program
A Colloquy With the Times: Reporter Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times responds

A NYT archived 1980 article and what it mentions:


WASHINGTON, Nov. 8--Justice Department lawyers say that the President still has the "inherent authority" to order searches without warrants to collect foreign intelligence within the United States, despite the criminal conviction this week of two former officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who said they had approved such searches in 1972 and 1973.

U.S.OFFICIALS DEFINE POLICY ON SEARCHES; Lawyers Assert President Still Has 'Inherent Authority' to Order Entries Without Warrants 'Concurrent Jurisdiction' 1978 Executive Order Cited No 'Foreign Connections' Found

Question: The New York Times had a year plus to do their legal homework on what they ultimately released on this matter? Compound this with what the NYT insinuated in the article and now asserts and claims in regards to such NSA wiretaps: that the Bush Adminstration was illegally doing such.

Interesting, no? Maybe to some, but certainly interesting to others. Bet.

This from astute blogger:


Now, go back and look carefully through the Times article. The reporters who have been so assiduously working on the story for at least a year couldn't find a single, non-anonymous expert in national security and the law to come up with the kind of informed analysis that took legal and counterterrorism bloggers three days to research and post.

How pathetic is that?

NSA and the Law: What the Times didn't print

Further proof that this matter of claims and assertions that the Bush Adminstration was breaking the law or laws is debated:
Did the President Break the Law?

This can go on and on.
My whole point from the get go on this was to clarify the claims and assertions made that vehemently and critically condemned the Bush Administration of guilt, with little proof and evidences entered to prove that indeed such a condemnation and sentence was and is justified. Please call me what you will, but in my honest opinion, I would caution and urge some that despite your hatred or dislike, to not be so hasty to place condemnation and guilt, as was evidently seen within this very topic thread alone, and definately not counting the multitudes of other like topics on this matter.





seekerof

[edit on 24-12-2005 by Seekerof]




posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

This can go on and on.
My whole point from the get go on this was to clarify the claims and assertions made that vehemently and critically condemned the Bush Administration of guilt, with little proof and evidences entered to prove that indeed such a condemnation and sentence was and is justified. Please call me what you will, but in my honest opinion, I would caution and urge some that despite your hatred or dislike, to not be so hasty to place condemnation and guilt, as was evidently seen within this very topic thread alone, and definately not counting the multitudes of other like topics on this matter.

seekerof



[edit on 24-12-2005 by Seekerof]


I love ya Seeker, but everyone who's defending Bush's actions are trying to hard to split hairs... If it is that "non"-obvious to "Everyone", then it needs to be further investigated for a fair and impartial trial before we lynch him!



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Question, mate:
Which exact law or laws did the Bush Adminstration break?
Can you point out the exact one(s)?





seekerof



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I am pretty sure this is used with known terrorists or others who have some sort of terrorist link with either terrorist organizations, mosques that are known to be anti-american and to sprout hatred against the US, or have some link with terrorists etc, etc...

I doubt the government is interested in listening to my mom, or me, talking to my relatives in Cuba to find out how they are doing....

BTW, does anyone have any idea how many people make international calls?....

It would be impossible to monitor all of them...

BTW, did anyone find unnaceptable CNN gaving up specific information to terrorists, warning them with information such as mosques being monitored for radiation levels?.... That should have been kept confidential...if there are any terrorists who were trying to use mosques to make any sort of dirty nuclear device, CNN tipped them to what exactly the government is doing to find terrorists....


If any other news network did the same thing and provided terrorists with this information they are just as guilty as CNN for warning terrorists....


[edit on 25-12-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Question, mate:
Which exact law or laws did the Bush Adminstration break?
Can you point out the exact one(s)?





seekerof


Ahem.... I seem to have missed your funny bone... That was a joke.


But, seriously, I suspect that there is merely a matter of interpretation among the many touts on both sides.

I don't feel like what he did, while perhaps not strictly speaking, illegal, is above board. And, apparently, I'm not the only one who feels that way, even though I may not be a lawyer head, or know what he did specifically that is illegal...

I do know that when someone is doing something that, to me, is questionable, and when they get caught, they get so very indignant about it, it does deserve a second look.

No... I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, or crayon in the box, but when the President goes against things that appear to be against the standard bill of rights, and tapdances around things with glib remarks and slick comebacks, s/he has something going on.

That would, honestly, be my feelings no matter who is in the office. Dem, Rep, Independent or whatever....

Tapdancing is tapdancing.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
................
I do know that when someone is doing something that, to me, is questionable, and when they get caught, they get so very indignant about it, it does deserve a second look.
..................


I guess it couldn't be possible at all that he is indignant about this whole situation because news networks don't care what damage the information they release can do, and that they might very well be giving terrorists specific information which they can use to avoid being caught....

I am just as indignant that i saw this morning on CNN their reporter announcing to every terrorist who has ears to hear not to try to build any nuclear devices in mosques because mosques are being monitored for radiation..... But i guess my indignation must mean i have something to hide huh?....



[edit on 25-12-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
....

I am just as indignant that i saw this morning on CNN their reporter announcing to every terrorist who has ears to hear not to try to build any nuclear devices in mosques because mosques are being monitored for radiation..... But i guess my indignation must mean i have something to hide huh?....

[edit on 25-12-2005 by Muaddib]


It amazes me that everyone, including myself at times, likes to use the
as if that is some sort of put down on someone else's observations, questions, or beliefs.

Didja ever stop to think that what you are indignant about might, in fact, be a ploy on the part of the government? That, perhaps, an ounce of prevention might be worth a pound of cure? That there might be some good coming from the fact that possible bad guys know that they are being watched? Just a thought...
... Ooops! Sorry! I meant to say,



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Didja ever stop to think that what you are indignant about might, in fact, be a ploy on the part of the government?

Not in this case. CNN wouldn't collaborate with this admin unless it was to stab them in the back.


I'm surprised you didn't know that, sigung.
Everybody knows that FOX News is the only unbiased TV channel out there.
.

Seriously, I still wonder about the nonchalant attitude of the NSA. Did nobody over there question an alleged "illegal" order?



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Oh, but i love entertainment...i would never block my source of laughter for all the tea in China


Hee hee hee, he said it! He said it! The #1 Pro Bush station......What a climactic moment!




REPLY: It's a pro-centrist/Republican station, and it's not number one (well it IS actually... their kicking MSNBC's butt in the ratings), it's the ONLY one.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86

Originally posted by Seekerof

This can go on and on.
My whole point from the get go on this was to clarify the claims and assertions made that vehemently and critically condemned the Bush Administration of guilt, with little proof and evidences entered to prove that indeed such a condemnation and sentence was and is justified. Please call me what you will, but in my honest opinion, I would caution and urge some that despite your hatred or dislike, to not be so hasty to place condemnation and guilt, as was evidently seen within this very topic thread alone, and definately not counting the multitudes of other like topics on this matter.

seekerof



[edit on 24-12-2005 by Seekerof]


I love ya Seeker, but everyone who's defending Bush's actions are trying to hard to split hairs... If it is that "non"-obvious to "Everyone", then it needs to be further investigated for a fair and impartial trial before we lynch him!


Splitting hairs???? it's the law. Oh, and by the way.... that little note about lynching Bush could get you thrown in prison (rightfully so), and it's an old law..... not something Bush came up with.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
zappa,

While I see you're extremely committed to defending your position, I can't help but point out that in this country that you claim to be free on a legal basis...

NO...the comment won't land anybody in jail. It was a literary use, and MOST of us realize that.

Chill out.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Could this be the leak, just a disguntled worker, or totally unrelated?

NSA Analyst Urges congress to Hear his Testimony Regarding Unlawful Conduct by NSA

More Background


If unrelated, I appologize.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Question, mate:
Which exact law or laws did the Bush Adminstration break?
Can you point out the exact one(s)?





seekerof


I'm not an attorney, but for a start, at least as I read it, there's conspiracy with regard to the violation of California Public Utilities Code 2891.1 (Smith 1992, 1994), to wit:

"No information regarding calling patterns, credit or financial information,subscriber services, or demographic data shall be disclosed by any telephone companywithout first obtaining the residential subscriber's consent..."

Although an exception is made in the code for "documents made available pursuant to FCC reporting requirements", there has been no indication that these "data mining" fishing trips made by the NSA on behalf of the Administration were ever disclosed to the FCC such that the documents obtained (the raw data) were rendered pursuant to FCC requirement. Nor is it evident that such data, normally collected pursuant to standing FCC requirements may be released without due notification of the individual subscriber and/or court order.

I, for one, in light of these actions by this Administration, and the distinct possiblity that MY right to privacy may have been violated under the laws of the State in which I reside, am seriously considering filing suit for violation of privacy, illegal search and sizure, and damages arising from the possible unauthorized release of personal, confidential information by person or persons in the employ of the Federal government.

The burden of proof would lay solely on the Government to show that NONE of MY confidential information was collected in violation of the law, and that subsequent to collection, none of my information was ever disseminated to unauthorized persons (which will be a neat trick, since none of the people who might have had access would have been authorized to do so under the letter of the law!) without my consent.

Perhaps a class action suit is in order...One with oh, say 200 million or so plantiffs?



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
.............................
Didja ever stop to think that what you are indignant about might, in fact, be a ploy on the part of the government?


So the government is now controlling my feelings too?.... It was not the government who provided this information, it was a news channel...CNN who gave this piece of information....not the government.


Originally posted by sigung86
That, perhaps, an ounce of prevention might be worth a pound of cure? That there might be some good coming from the fact that possible bad guys know that they are being watched? Just a thought...
... Ooops! Sorry! I meant to say,


Right....so now giving specific information to terrorists is good for us?....

Humm, perhaps the police should also be announcing to thieves where and how they are being watched before they are apprehended...... According to you this would prevent crimes right?......



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by sigung86
...

Right....so now giving specific information to terrorists is good for us?....

Humm, perhaps the police should also be announcing to thieves where and how they are being watched before they are apprehended...... According to you this would prevent crimes right?......


Expand your horizons little mouse. Not everything is cut in plain little squares of black and white.


roz

posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Good idea. Bad time to let it loose to the press.

[edit on 27-12-2005 by roz]



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
............
Expand your horizons little mouse. Not everything is cut in plain little squares of black and white.


wth?......

Is that your defense for your argument?.....



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar

Originally posted by Seekerof
Question, mate:
Which exact law or laws did the Bush Adminstration break?
Can you point out the exact one(s)?





seekerof


I'm not an attorney, but for a start, at least as I read it, there's conspiracy with regard to the violation of California Public Utilities Code 2891.1 (Smith 1992, 1994), to wit:

"No information regarding calling patterns, credit or financial information,subscriber services, or demographic data shall be disclosed by any telephone companywithout first obtaining the residential subscriber's consent..."

Although an exception is made in the code for "documents made available pursuant to FCC reporting requirements", there has been no indication that these "data mining" fishing trips made by the NSA on behalf of the Administration were ever disclosed to the FCC such that the documents obtained (the raw data) were rendered pursuant to FCC requirement. Nor is it evident that such data, normally collected pursuant to standing FCC requirements may be released without due notification of the individual subscriber and/or court order.

I, for one, in light of these actions by this Administration, and the distinct possiblity that MY right to privacy may have been violated under the laws of the State in which I reside, am seriously considering filing suit for violation of privacy, illegal search and sizure, and damages arising from the possible unauthorized release of personal, confidential information by person or persons in the employ of the Federal government.

The burden of proof would lay solely on the Government to show that NONE of MY confidential information was collected in violation of the law, and that subsequent to collection, none of my information was ever disseminated to unauthorized persons (which will be a neat trick, since none of the people who might have had access would have been authorized to do so under the letter of the law!) without my consent.

Perhaps a class action suit is in order...One with oh, say 200 million or so plantiffs?


REPLY: I believe the US Code as it pertains to national security trumps state laws. As a start, you would have to file a state lawsuit against the telephone company, at which point the burden of proof falls upon you. I hope you're independently wealthy.....



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
zappa,

While I see you're extremely committed to defending your position, I can't help but point out that in this country that you claim to be free on a legal basis...

NO...the comment won't land anybody in jail. It was a literary use, and MOST of us realize that.

Chill out.


What you say could be true, or pure speculation. In either case, as it pertains to what ws said, we are not the ones who would judge on the matter.

I'm chilled now..... thanks!

Bhadhidar; Could you pleae let me know where in the Bill of Rights it says you have a "right to privacy"? Hhmmmm........ lets see here....... it says you have a right to be secure in your papers and effects, but that's it.

[edit on 27-12-2005 by zappafan1]



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
REPLY: I believe the US Code as it pertains to national security trumps state laws. As a start, you would have to file a state lawsuit against the telephone company, at which point the burden of proof falls upon you. I hope you're independently wealthy.....

This is not an issue of whether Federal law trumps State statutes with regard to national security. At this stage, the issue is not even one of national security requirements.

The issue is simply this: California's privacy laws (and similar laws exist throughout the country) require telecommunications companies operating in the State to guard the privacy of their subscribers by requiring prior notification, or authorization via duly issued court order!

The nature of the surveillence obviously made prior notification impossible; however, by cooperating with the governemt without benefit of indemnification by under the auspices of a duly issued court order, the telecoms which allowed their equipment to be used by the goverment in conducting this surveillance have violated CA PUC 2891.1.

The telecoms cannot, if called to task for their participation, claim that they were forced to cooperate with the government, since the mechinism prescribed by code to impliment that cooperation, namely a court order, was never offered nor requested.

As I see it, the telecoms invovled cannot even provide, in their defense, the claim that any particular subscriber's information was not compromised. Under the privacy provisions, it is the burden of the telecoms to protect their subscriber's information!

The law does not require the subscribers to verify that the telecoms have complied with the law; simply stated, if information was released without notification or warrant, the law was violated.

Sans warrant, and considering the data-minning techniques likely employed by the NSA (which will of course never be detailed for the public), it is unlikely that either the companies or the government will be able to identify all the individuals surveilled, or the scope of the information gleaned.

Further, I do not believe that a law suit would be the most appropriate first step. A violation of the PUC code has been alleged, therefore the logical first act would be to file a complaint with the California PUC.

A favorable ruling from the PUC would then open the door to civil, and possibly, even crimminal suits being filed.

Faced with such an onslaught (imagine all those greedy subscribers clamouring for their piece of the tort pie!) it is likely that the telecoms would have no choice but to unleash their lobbyists upon Capitol Hill to wreack rightoeous wrath upon the adminstration officials responsible for thier dilema.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join