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: 13
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
Interesting though that there are so many folks who seem to want the government to have total control. I don't mind that there are things the people should not know. That's reasonable, but when the watchdogs let the fox raid the henhouse... Sometimes you gotta punish the watch dogs.

What's interesting is that you seem to know people like that. Do me a favor - if you ever see one of them here on ATS, please point them out to me, OK? Because I've never met someone like that.

I will say, however, that I have met people on the other side of the fence - that totally mistrust anybody or anything with the word government associated with them.

That to me is an unhealthy way to live, to put it nicely. You gotta have a balance somewhere in there.




posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by sigung86

I will say, however, that I have met people on the other side of the fence - that totally mistrust anybody or anything with the word government associated with them.

That to me is an unhealthy way to live, to put it nicely. You gotta have a balance somewhere in there.



actually, there should be an amount of trust in the government, but the government has to earn that trust. The only way the government, in my and Thomas Jefferson's paradigm (more or less) keeps that trust is to be afraid of the people it has to govern for.

I guess my real big problem is one that is pretty insoluble, at this point. The government (the tail of the dog for this illustration) is so busy shaking the dog, that the dog has forgotten who is, actually, in charge.

As I said, I don't see any solutions on the horizon, but that doesn't keep a crusty old geezer like me from storming on occasion.


[edit on 2-1-2006 by sigung86]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
The only way the government, in my and Thomas Jefferson's paradigm (more or less) keeps that trust is to be afraid of the people it has to govern for.


Likewise, in my and Madison's paradigm, the people are not deserving of trust, and therefore, the government will dictate what is best for them. Trust is thus secured in direction and security.






seekerof



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof



Likewise, in my and Madison's paradigm, the people are not deserving of trust, and therefore, the government will dictate what is best for them. Trust is thus secured in direction and security.

seekerof


And you wonder why there are people out there like me who think the government is untrustworthy?

If they truly believe that I am unworthy of trust, then it behooves me to consider that, perhaps, they are unworthy in return. Kind of like, what goes around, comes around.

I won't go off on a rant, but I see that type of mentality a little to open to things like Mussolini, Stalin, Pohl Pott, etc. etc. Notice I didn't mention Hitler... He seems to be too much of a lightning rod.


Kind of wonder if Madison wasn't a bit of a socialist, communist, or at very least, an elitist.

I* mean, seriously, what did Madison ever do beside have a town in Wisconsin named after him????



[edit on 3-1-2006 by sigung86]


PKD

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

I'm sure civil libertarians will up in arms over this, but as long it is just aimed at international terrorism, I have no problem with it and am, in fact, glad it's being done.
[edit on 12/16/2005 by djohnsto77]


LOL. You ever heard of the Bill of Rights? How about The Constitution? Terrorism is a fake scenario created by our government to institute martial law and take away your rights. What many americans fail to realize is just what black ops are. Bin Laden was, is and always will be an employee of the CIA. His salary paid with your hard earned tax dollars. I just don't see why that is so difficult for some people to accept. You've been duped.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by PKD
Terrorism is a fake scenario created by our government to institute martial law and take away your rights.

Really? Is the entire government in on this plot? Why do they want to take away my rights, anyway?


Bin Laden was, is and always will be an employee of the CIA. His salary paid with your hard earned tax dollars. I just don't see why that is so difficult for some people to accept.

It might not be so hard to accept if you had just the tiniest bit of verifiable proof.

You don't have that kind of proof, do you?



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
And you wonder why there are people out there like me who think the government is untrustworthy?

If they truly believe that I am unworthy of trust, then it behooves me to consider that, perhaps, they are unworthy in return. Kind of like, what goes around, comes around.

Read a few good academic books on James Madison, Hamilton, and a few other Nationalists=Federalists, then perhaps you will understand why they thought the populace was not worthy of being trusted. If you look closely at the Madison Plan, you will see exactly that.




I won't go off on a rant, but I see that type of mentality a little to open to things like Mussolini, Stalin, Pohl Pott, etc. etc.

Let me get this straight, your comparing Madison and Hamilton, among other Nationalists=Federalists, with the likes of Mussolini, Stalin, etc.?
*scratches head*
Riiiighhtt. Research is your best friend, not rhetoric.





Notice I didn't mention Hitler... He seems to be too much of a lightning rod.


Yes, apparently, you are well acquainted with Godwin's Law then?




Kind of wonder if Madison wasn't a bit of a socialist, communist, or at very least, an elitist.

Read and research before speculating, maybe?




I* mean, seriously, what did Madison ever do beside have a town in Wisconsin named after him????

Obviously nothing, which then places him in the same bracket as the likes of your fav., Jefferson? I mean geez, other than lay the foundations for the Constitution, eradicating the worthless Articles of Confederation, and becoming a president of a nation, among other unmentioned things, yeah, just what did Madison ever do.....hmmm....








seekerof

[edit on 3-1-2006 by Seekerof]


PKD

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by PKD
Terrorism is a fake scenario created by our government to institute martial law and take away your rights.

Really? Is the entire government in on this plot? Why do they want to take away my rights, anyway?


Bin Laden was, is and always will be an employee of the CIA. His salary paid with your hard earned tax dollars. I just don't see why that is so difficult for some people to accept.

It might not be so hard to accept if you had just the tiniest bit of verifiable proof.

You don't have that kind of proof, do you?


You know, as well as i do, that Bin Laden is a figure head war criminal. I mean really, did you take high school english? 1984 by George Orwell ring a bell? Pay attention a little bit closer. I don't have to means to dig through CNN archives to prove to you that Muhammad Atta was financed 100k through our cia. And do you seriously think that a smoking gun like that would be left for reseachers to investegate?

I like how you took my quote on the illumiati taking our rights away out of context to serve your own non understanding of whats going on here. Certain aspects of the us government are controlled by the shadow government. Really easy concept to understand. Globalism means all countries are running at the same speed. In order for this to take place you must give up some of your rights, so that other third world countries may come up to speed, in terms of agriculture, labor, and overall work production. Industrialization. Consolidation of power means closer control over the globe, which translates to more money for those in the highest ranks of power. Control over all media outlets, means control over your mind. You read newspapers and watch television. All those devices were designed for you. And you absorb them well. Unfortunatley what most people on this website who are looking for proof of conspiracy fail to understand, is that it wouldn't be a conspiracy if it could be proved! Alex Jones proved it in his film The Rise of The Police State. I am not going to go into detail here. Find your self a copy of that documentary if you want further proof.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Pedestrian Crossing

For what it's worth, I've never encountered anyone who talks down to people while putting on airs of superiority who actually had anything worthwhile to offer.

If members have explosive esoteric knowledge that backs up their claims, then the only decent thing to do is present it in a coherent, persuasive fashion with links and citations.

Insulting, pedantic rants and braggadoccio do nothing except discredit the person indulging in it.

At least, that's what experience has taught me over the years.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by PKD

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by PKD
Terrorism is a fake scenario created by our government to institute martial law and take away your rights.

Really? Is the entire government in on this plot? Why do they want to take away my rights, anyway?


Bin Laden was, is and always will be an employee of the CIA. His salary paid with your hard earned tax dollars. I just don't see why that is so difficult for some people to accept.

It might not be so hard to accept if you had just the tiniest bit of verifiable proof.

You don't have that kind of proof, do you?


You know, as well as i do, that Bin Laden is a figure head war criminal. I mean really, did you take high school english? 1984 by George Orwell ring a bell? Pay attention a little bit closer. I don't have to means to dig through CNN archives to prove to you that Muhammad Atta was financed 100k through our cia. And do you seriously think that a smoking gun like that would be left for reseachers to investegate?

I like how you took my quote on the illumiati taking our rights away out of context to serve your own non understanding of whats going on here. Certain aspects of the us government are controlled by the shadow government. Really easy concept to understand. Globalism means all countries are running at the same speed. In order for this to take place you must give up some of your rights, so that other third world countries may come up to speed, in terms of agriculture, labor, and overall work production. Industrialization. Consolidation of power means closer control over the globe, which translates to more money for those in the highest ranks of power. Control over all media outlets, means control over your mind. You read newspapers and watch television. All those devices were designed for you. And you absorb them well. Unfortunatley what most people on this website who are looking for proof of conspiracy fail to understand, is that it wouldn't be a conspiracy if it could be proved! Alex Jones proved it in his film The Rise of The Police State. I am not going to go into detail here. Find your self a copy of that documentary if you want further proof.


REPLY: Right....... and Michael Moore's "documentary" was correct... HA HA HA HA .
The only thing you said even close to being true is that Bin Laden is a figurehead; his doctor Al Zawaheri is the masterming.
Atta met with a member of Saddams military elite the year before 9-11.

Before you you can expect to have 99% of those here to believe that **** you'll have to provide links from RELIABLE sources.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by PKD

Originally posted by djohnsto77

I'm sure civil libertarians will up in arms over this, but as long it is just aimed at international terrorism, I have no problem with it and am, in fact, glad it's being done.
[edit on 12/16/2005 by djohnsto77]


LOL. You ever heard of the Bill of Rights? How about The Constitution? Terrorism is a fake scenario created by our government to institute martial law and take away your rights. What many americans fail to realize is just what black ops are. Bin Laden was, is and always will be an employee of the CIA. His salary paid with your hard earned tax dollars. I just don't see why that is so difficult for some people to accept. You've been duped.


REPLY: You know nothing about "Black Ops"....... I do.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
one of the whistleblowers has admitted to being one of the Tiime's sources.

he says he'd guess that the number of americans that were spied on to be in the millions....


----------------------------------------------------

"President Bush has admitted that he gave orders that allowed the NSA to eavesdrop on a small number of Americans without the usual requisite warrants.

But Tice disagrees. He says the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions if the full range of secret NSA programs is used.

"That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum," Tice said.

abcnews.go.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
dawnstar:
What could be and what may be or what is are two different matters, are they not?
Your ABC link is nothing but knee-jerking conjecture, based on what could be.





seekerof



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Don't blame poor Bush he was just paranoid of been unpopular.

All he wanted was to know if is people out there that still likes him.


That is why he needed to spy on millions of Americans.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
This is the latest on the NSA leak.

It seems that a Russell Tice is the whistleblower to NYT.

He was dismissed by the NSA in May of last year because af some psychological problems and is likely a disgruntled former employee.

Never-the-less, he disclosed classified information and should be tried for treason. He has thwarted the ability to efficiantly track the killers of our children and some will applaud his "running-at-the-mouth" antics.

The critics of NSA and President Bush may call him a hero, but when your children are killed by some terrorists because of this idiots actions,who will you blame then?

I say hang or shoot this bastard. It doesn't matter to me as long as he's silenced!

[edit on 10/1/06 by Intelearthling]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Now he is a mental case, got fired, this sounds so familiar . . . . hum.

Nice tactics there with the killing of the Innocent children Intelearthling.


I guess we just have to wait and see rather than listening and reading from the propaganda machine.


He will have his day in congress, occurs if he is not put in a mental hospital for having "Problems"

[edit on 10-1-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   
and, if it's found that bush did break the law with his spying, ummm.....can we try him for treason also?

what about Libby and his buddies, whoever they may be, they blew Plame's cover.....

[edit on 10-1-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Ha, I posed a query about him, on this thread, the day after Christmas.



ABC News Leak Russ Tice

He told ABC News that he was a source for the Times' reporters.



Who are the other sources? Are they disgruntled too?
Did they work with Tice? Are they still inside the NSA?

Will we recognize their names?
Why did they blow the whistle?
Who will report the other identities first?
Will ATS break the news to the world?

Members, Writers, Fighters, Scholars all. Nows your chance.
Go get em!



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by dgtempe
Another viewpoint:

Susan Low Bloch, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center, said Bush was "taking a hugely expansive interpretation of the Constitution and the president's powers under the Constitution.

That view was echoed by congressional Democrats.

"I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press.

Another viewpoint II

Hey, that is a swell and sure relevant mention by that Constitutional Law professor, but perhaps she was not fully researched or simply missed this below linked mention. This law, which has gone unmentioned during this entire topic, is a pertinent law, labeled as 50 USC 1802, which would quite possibly indicate that no law was broken.



§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

(a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; [e.g., defined as terrorists /angkor]

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person [e.g. citizen or perm. resident /angkor] is a party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.

US Code: Title 50, 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order...

In the link provided below [for the quote given], FISA, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, gives the US government wide latitude in warrantless surveillance of international communications even when one point originates in the US, as long as the person in the US does not qualify as a "US person". A "United States person" is then defined:


(i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.

Note that a US person must either be a US citizen or someone lawfully admitted to the US for permanent residence. If someone resides in the US on a visa and not a green card, they do not qualify, nor do they qualify if they get a green card under false pretenses.


Of additional relevance to FISA and the authorization of warrentless surveillance:


In fact, the only people who need to make this call are the President and the Attorney General, and it doesn't even make the accidental or tangential exposure of communications with US persons a crime. It only requires that the AG ensure that mitigation procedures have been applied to ensure compliance with FISA. The only way that one can violate this law is if the law gets intentionally violated. In other words, one would have to prove that Bush intentionally ordered the surveillance of a qualifying US person.

The FISA Act And The Definition Of 'US Persons'



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Quotes from Blakthought, and replies:

".... I am for the rule of fairness. Not for the survival of the fittest (which is unfethard capitalism)."

REPLY:Fairness is the same Socialist crapola taught in our schools and colleges for the past 30 years. Survival of "the fittest" means the hard working, the intelligent or the successful. Rewarding failure is never a good idea.

".... 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."

REPLY: What "situation"? America is only minimally a "democracy." It is a Constitutional Representative Republic. Most "Democracies" in history have failed within 200 years.

".... 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."

REP[LY: As to democracy, see above. The 3rd parties are having a hard time just as the dems have been; the people see their message and plans for America, and they just plain don't like it.

".... 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."

REPLY: If you're not on the list of numbers, and/or are not talking to members of Al-Queda, you have nothing to worry about. If you ARE, then even I'd want to know. 8^) Our freedoms and "privacy" is quite clearly spelled out in the Bill of Rights, and are only subjugated by laws pertaining to security.

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

REPLY: True, quite true. However, as combat detainees, they do not fall under the jurisdiction of states courts, 'nor the Geneva Convention.

".... 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."

REPLY: There are five judges, I believe, on the FISA court. Do the research... it's riight in this thread, I believe on page two, and a couple of others, pertaining to the law allowing un-warranted wiretaps.

".... 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…"

REPLY: Could you link to the report? There have been more than one. Besides, it has nothing to do with this thread. The "poor" in N.O. was due to the Nanny state, and the failure of local officials.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join