POLITICS: Justice Department Opens NSA Leak Probe

Accordingly, the law does not grant an exception based on the leakers' motives.

Nether do the laws that regulate how and under what circumstances wiretaps are going to be used against US citizens. The law says warrants are required. The law says that in an emergency, the .gov can do the wiretaps and get the warrants later, but the administration didn't even bother to do that.

So the administration breaks the law, and it's supporters only care about enforcing the law when it comes to seeing that the whistleblowers get punished. Well I can't say it's a shock, anyway... the moral gymnastics required to defend this administration (or the last one for that matter, WRT civil liberties Clinton was no prize either) are rather amazing to watch. Braindead partisanship knows no limits these days.

Originally posted by xmotex
Nether do the laws that regulate how and under what circumstances wiretaps are going to be used against US citizens. The law says warrants are required. The law says that in an emergency, the .gov can do the wiretaps and get the warrants later, but the administration didn't even bother to do that.

Show me the law that says wiretaps must have warrents.
Quote that law here, and I will quote, as I have a number of times already, the law that indicates that warrants can be bypassed, otherwise known as warrentless wiretaps, etc.

Hell, why wait.
Try my second post here and on the subsequent following pages:
Bush Allowed NSA to Spy on U.S. International Calls




seekerof

[edit on 31-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Under a congressional resolution, known as the Authorization to Use Military force, back in 2001 Bush is hiding to justify his creation of the domestic spying program.

Bush self appointed power comes from been a commander-in-chief and taken upon himself the responsibility to protect the nation.

So under his war on terror and the excused of preventing another 9/11 he feels that has the right to step over constitutional rights.

So in order to protect us and the nation he must spying on American citizens, and do it with dictatorship powers that the patriot act seems to be giving him.

Because the 2001 resolution just like the patriot act was passed in haste after 9/11 all kind of abuses can be expected from it, so the patriot act actually is an abomination to civil rights in this country.

Now the warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance inside of the US comes from the power that Bush believes was given to him by the secret foreign intelligence Surveillance Act court.

Thanks to the patriot act Bush has the right to abuse his powers in the name of national security.

The FISA court requires that evidence of terrorist links, and makes it a crime for anyone to intentionally intercept a communication without a warrant.

But Bush will hide under fact that the congress gave him the authorization to do it and he expects the Republican rule congress to back him up.

So Bush dictatorial actions will also backed by the powers that he gave himself after 9/11 by the majority Republican congress that “special needs” are in order because US was attack.

But he lie see he said that he was not after Americans but Al-qaida links but he also was after American groups and civil right groups.

Yes he is all cover up for this one.

Bush has the power to grand the constitution and to take it away from us when he seems fit as in the "War on Terror"

But guess is ok for a lot of people that feels he is doing just right.

Originally posted by marg6043
................
BTW Muaddib you seem to magically appear in these threads when is time to defend Bush polices.

and actions.

Marg... I don't magically appear out of nowhere, I have been in the forums almost everyday posting new threads, or responding to threads. Do I defend what i think it's right and point out exagerations and when people jump to the wrong conclusions? You betcha.

Anyways, since when is this post about me?....

[edit on 31-12-2005 by Muaddib]

Let's stick to the topic folks.

Muaddib

I will like to take this opportunity to apologized for that spiteful comment you are a well known member of these boards and longer than me.

I am very glad to see you around and read you post, even if I disagree with some of them.

Happy new years.

Originally posted by marg6043
The FISA court requires that evidence of terrorist links, and makes it a crime for anyone to intentionally intercept a communication without a warrant.

Marg, where exactly are you getting your information from?
The FISA law is available all over the internet.
Your above in bold assertion is a half-fact.

From US Code: Title 50, 1802:

§ 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.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Furthermore:

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'

The issue here is about the investigation into who leaked classified information that strictly and blatantly violates National Security Laws.

The NYT will be investigated.
The Washington Post will be investigated.
And the leakers used for their articles revealing classified information will be identified. Bet.

Plamegate has nothing in comparison to this investigation, nothing.
This investigation will be monumental.





seekerof

[edit on 31-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Even when the checks and balance of our nation has been broken in the name of Bush interpretation of his powers at least people that are in the list of Bush surveillance have the right to sue the government for violations if the Bush administration can not prove that they were link to Al-qaida.

That includes Gonzales he can be sue too. Occurs he is one that also doesn't believe in the constitution that is why Bush got him as Attorney General.

Perhaps some justice will be serve after all.

What you people think. will Bush release the names of the people that was under surveillance to prove that he was only spying on Al-qaida link communications?





[edit on 31-12-2005 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043
What you people think. will Bush release the names of the people that was under surveillance to prove that he was only spying on Al-qaida link communications?

Here's your answer:
Will that be a asked question in any future legal investigation of the NSA international wiretapping program or will the NYTimes reveal those names first?






seekerof

Originally posted by marg6043
Funny how in order to protect the government followers of Bush regime will even agree with the dictatorship powers that Bush has given to himself.

Dictatorship powers?... i still see you taking things out of context and yelling to the world you are in a dictatorship...in real dictatorships you can't do that Marg. Again, tell me how has this destroyed any of your rights?... What rights have been taken away from you?

Are you being followed and harassed by secret service agents?....

Can you not walk to whatever store or restaurant you want and eat anything you want?

Can you not talk about "anything you would normally talk about", even politics, with other people?

Can you not get a flight ticket to anywhere in the world you want to go to?

Can you not exercise your right to practice whatever religion you follow?

And the last question, do you think the U.S. government is the only government in the west that has surveillance on protest groups?

Again, i am asking you, since you are saying the U.S. is a dictatorship. What rights have you lost and what have you not been able to do since 9/11?....

Originally posted by marg6043
A leak to inform people of the illegal doings of our government was done to tell us how far Bush abuse of power has gone.

What is illegal is to have some protest groups and anyone else trying to plan on ways to cause destruction or death to the U.S. and any U.S. citizen/resident..... That's what is illegal, and that's what the government is trying to avoid, and anything you say and nomatter how many times you want to exagerate and take things out of context is not going to change that fact.

Originally posted by marg6043
He had no need to go around congress to do what he did, but he did and people still think he is God incarnated.

What in the world are you talking about?.....

Who has said that president Bush is "God incarnated"?......

Can you point to us where anyone has said this, or even hinted at this?....

Originally posted by marg6043
By the way Muaddib I see what you mean bombs are exploding from protest groups every day and suicide crazies are taking the cities in the US.

It doesn't have to happen everyday Marg in order for this to happen. Would you rather there were more Timothy Mcveighs being allowed to kill more Americans/residents of the U.S. more frequently?....

For my part, i wouldn't want it that way, but maybe you would.....

Originally posted by marg6043
A rat chase is a rat chase and abuse of power is still abuse of power not matter how sugar coated the bush administration will painted.

And a terrorist is a terrorist, there are quite a few people around who think "free speech" means they can plan violent attacks in U.S. cities and/or to U.S. citizens....

It does happens Marg, but maybe you are living in another dimension in which there is an utopia and everyone loves everyone else and gives hugs and flowers to each other everyday.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Here's your answer:
Will that be a asked question in any future legal investigation of the NSA international wiretapping program or will the NYTimes reveal those names first?
seekerof

You know I have not thought about that one, do you think that they actually have the names of the people being spied on?

Or the investigation on the leak will put a gag on them.

This is going to be very interesting, regardless of legalities I think is more to the issue that many may think.

Muabddib

Doesn't kind of bother you that from all the surveillance the Bush administration did not got have anybody brought up on charges and prosecuted?

It kind of tells that perhaps from all the secret surveillance he was actually no really spying of criminals after all.

Let me make something clear, I have not problem with surveillance that are to bring Al-qaida friendlies down.

My problem is with American citizens been spied on for been part of groups that are not in favor of bush policies and procedures and are protesting the war in Iraq.

I will like to know how many of the people that were on surveillance are actually link to al-qaida.

Originally posted by marg6043

Muabddib

Doesn't kind of bother you that from all the surveillance the Bush administration did not got have anybody brought up on charges and prosecuted?

It kind of tells that perhaps from all the secret surveillance he was actually no really spying of criminals after all.

They could still be under investigation, normally how the big fishes are captured is by seeing what the small fishes are doing and who they talk to.

Originally posted by marg6043
Let me make something clear, I have not problem with surveillance that are to bring Al-qaida friendlies down.

There are many other organizations that want to bring damage to the U.S. and U.S. citizens/residents.

Originally posted by marg6043
My problem is with American citizens been spied on for been part of groups that are not in favor of bush policies and procedures and are protesting the war in Iraq.

Marg, i doub t many U.S. citizens are being spied on unless they have some connection to terrorist organizations or protest groups who have called for violence and rebellion in the U.S.

Most people that make international calls are residents. i think some groups, i am not saying you but some other groups, are trying to claim that "only U.S. citizens are being spied on" to bring outrage to U.S. citizens, but the truth is that probably more residents make international calls than U.S. citizens. These tactics are probably part of the plans brought in by some groups to bring in the "revolucion" to the U.S.

The U.S. government is there not only to protect the law abiding citizen's rights, but to make sure that no violent attacks are brought upon the people in the U.S. The rights of people end when they are trying to bring destruction and mayhem to the U.S. and it's people.

Originally posted by marg6043
I will like to know how many of the people that were on surveillance are actually link to al-qaida.

There are many other terrorist groups out there Marg not only Al-Qaeda, some of them pose as "protest groups", and btw, i just gave one example of some people in a protest group who want to bring destruction to some U.S. citizens/residents.

There are many people out there who think that for example, they want to save every animal from being used in experiments, hence in their minds they have a right to place bombs or make violent demonstrations.

The U.S. is still a free country despite everything that has happened, i don't agree 100% with everything that has happened either, but trying to break out a "violent revolucion" and violent protests is not going to help anything.

If there are some issues people want changed write your congresmen/congreswomen, make "peaceful and lawfull protests", because inciting violence will only break the laws and it will also hurt other Americans and residents in the U.S.

Since 9/11 none of my rights have been taken away, the only thing that has happened is that now it takes longer for me to pass security at airports.

I have seen some security personnel go bonkers on me because i am hispanic and carry two laptops for my job, lol. But as long as I remain respectful and follow the safety procedures, they have remained respectful of me and have let me board the planes whenever I need to go.

Whether people like it or not 9/11 changed the U.S. in many ways, but it is still a free country.

[edit on 31-12-2005 by Muaddib]

from marg
Doesn't kind of bother you that from all the surveillance the Bush administration did not got have anybody brought up on charges and prosecuted?

It kind of tells that perhaps from all the secret surveillance he was actually no really spying of criminals after all.

There is no way that we can know the total impact of their actions. And we shouldn't know some of it.

In other words, how can we tell if the surveillance resulted in squelching another attack? Or ten attacks?

Double post, sorry.

[edit on 1-1-2006 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky

In other words, how can we tell if the surveillance resulted in squelching another attack? Or ten attacks?

And that is exactly why the congress this year will be doing an inquiry as the reason that Bush and Gonzales decided that it was necessary to by pass the procedures set in place to protect the constitutional rights of Americans.

The reason and laws Gonzales and Bush are using to justify the actions actually work to certain situations.

Its one question that the congress will be asking and is asking right now but Bush and Gonzales can not answer, and that is Why.

Specially when the court set in place already has prove that they were pretty fast and had no problem with last minute request from the NSA.

This will open the door to more complicated issues as Who really was involve in communications with al-Aqaida and who was just spying on because of political reasons.

I find this fair and the right thing to do. It he was within the law then he is ok, but so far it seems that he actually may have step beyond his powers in certain instances.

[edit on 1-1-2006 by marg6043]

[edit on 1-1-2006 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043
Muaddib

I will like to take this opportunity to apologized for that spiteful comment you are a well known member of these boards and longer than me.

I am very glad to see you around and read you post, even if I disagree with some of them.

Happy new years.

Marg, I also want to apologize to you, for my responses tend to be over the top sometimes.

We can all at least agree that we can disagree.

Let's wait and see what comes out of this leak probe.

[edit on 1-1-2006 by Muaddib]

I decided that this new year I will not let personal feelings about politics get the best out of me and stop me from really getting to know some of you, I have discovered very slowing that some of the members in this boards are very amazing people and very pleasant to talk too even with differences in ideologies.

No need for fights just meaninful debates.

Oh please, will the two of you get a room, fer chrissakes! I don't think I can take all this courtesy and nicey-nice. (just kidding)

In yesterdays' NYT, the paper's ombudsman Byron Calame ripped the Times for the weak explanation of their handling of the NSA leak ( I won't say NSA Spy Leak anymore, since NSA and Spy are redundant).
Weak leak

I find this encouraging, that the paper's own editors, even though he is the ombudsman, sees that there is something about the timing of the leak that just plain stinks.

Why the paper just doesn't admit that the release of Risen's book deal, and a chance to stifle the PA, are really behind their delay?

As I said before, "It's a duck thing".

Pheweee!!! Glad to see that the conservative super heroes have quit beating on Marg!

To be sure, both sides of this issue have problems and have done things that are probably not Constitutional. And, to boot, the person/people who leaked it are probably liable for a certain amount of illegality. However ...

Having the actions of government put in the light of day, and reason, isn't necessarily a bad thing. I stated, once before, that I would back off and observe, after watching Bushie give his little speech on television. I will continue to watch and observe... There is still a little part of me ... A wee small voice in the background that says that this administration bears watching. In the name of security, there are still excesses being performed against the Constitution, in my opinion only.

We won't ever know what they are, nor can we defend against them, if we have no way of finding them out ... Perhaps until it is too late.

I don't speak for anyone other than myself, but I suspect that Marg and I are in kind of the same boat on this.

If I am observant enough to keep you from coming in my house and lying on the couch and watching my television whenever you simply want to, then I don't have to worry about you coming in when I happen to be at work and taking all my furniture. And if one of my neighbors should let it leak to me that you are, in fact, sneaking in when I'm away, then I am not at all sure that person should be drawn and quartered for helping me protect my furniture.

Oversimple? Sure, but the concept is there. And it is non-partisan. I know that JSObecky, Muaddib, as well as several others and I have crossed our idealogical swords on several occasion. I agree with Marg and "the little mouse"... There's no reason we can not get along at other than idealogical levels and simply agree to disagree (perhaps loudly, at times)... And watch and see where this latest development lands. I've never been too proud to eat crow, but I want to see that it is the only option before I by pass the peanut butter sandwich...

Jsobecky you are just jealous, he,he.

Anyway you may be right on that perhaps the time was indeed because the book deal, but also bringing this type of information during this time of the year will tend to dissipate and forgotten.

People tend to be more forgiving during the holiday season, so the administration was very good at pushing the disclosure for this time.

But also I agree with sigung86 that we don’t really know yet to what extend a whistle blower felt that his life and reputation was worth risking letting the nation knows that something was wrong or he felt something was wrong with the way that the NSA was performing his secret business.

I guess time will tell as to find out if it was merited or just political or personal motivated.