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.

 

Bush Administration Says Warrantless Eavesdropping Cannot Be Questioned

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Bush Administration Says Warrantless Eavesdropping Cannot Be Questioned


blog.wired.com

The Bush administration said Monday the constitutionality of its warrantless electronic eavesdropping program cannot be challenged.

The government is taking that position in seeking the dismissal of federal court lawsuits against the government and AT&T over its alleged involvement in the once-secret surveillance program adopted after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The strategy was first recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in a McCarthy-era lawsuit. It has been increasingly invoked in a bid to shield the government from legal scrutiny.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I just can't understand why the rest of the government is letting the Bush administration get away with these kind of tactics.

The U.S. government is suppose to be a system a system of checks and balance so that one branch of the government doesn't get too powerful.

Well, this system sure isn't working with this administration, every time one branch of the government wants to investigate the Bush administration, they just tell them it's "state secrets privilege" or "executive privilege", and then the investigation just hits a wall.

This is not the way our government was set up to work.

Why, and how can this administration (the executive branch) keep secrets from the other branches of the government? How can the system of checks and balance work if nobody can even investigate what the executive branch is doing because its "a secret"?

Why shouldn't the elected or appointed officials in the other branches of our government know everything that is happening that has to do with the governing and the rights of the citizens they were elected to represent?

If the "Bush Administration Says Warrantless Eavesdropping Cannot Be Questioned", how can the system of checks and balance work?

blog.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 14/8/07 by Keyhole]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
No Further Questions

I have a rather strong opinion about this issue, but I should probably keep it a secret.

Not because of national security, mind you, but rather because this is a family-friendly website.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   



It has been increasingly invoked in a bid to shield the government from legal scrutiny.




This is the last thing that should be happening in a government!

The government should be held accountable for anything it does if it is illegal, and NEVER be able to shield itself from legal scrutiny!

This sure isn't a government "of the people, for the people" anymore!



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I'm not a student of American political or constitutional history, but from the little research I've done it seems that the executive branch has gotten much more poweful since the emergence of a "national security state" following WWII. Still, even looking before WWII we can see that FDR had huge power during the Great Depression. Events of "national security" or "emergency" may require centralized decision-making for effectiveness, but the executive branch has been able to manipulate this idea to strengthen itself by consistently telling Congress that a threat exists or that danger is imminent. If Congress refuses, the executive accuses it to be soft on terror or it is weak-willed or it putting America at danger.

I thought much of the legislative caving had to do with Republicans simply supporting their candidate, like the Military Commissions Act, which was a huge slap in the face to the Geneva Conventions and removed civilian courts (for unlawful combatants) almost entirely out of the picture. But just a week ago, the Protect America Act was passed. I don't know what the bill does really, except that the administration really wanted it passed and the Democrats gave in due to fears "about the political costs of blocking action before the summer recess," according to this person. [www.washingtonpost.com...].



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I started a discussion on this topic some time ago, and I've gotten surprisingly few comments. I'm glad to see you guys talking about this. I'm going to link your thread to mine. Keep on talking. Anyone who wants a conspiracy to dissect should know that this is about as real as it gets.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I'm curious about what this new Act does. Admittedly, I haven't really read your thread, although I have read over the text of the bill itself. It definitely seems to put more power into the hands of the executive (besides it being a legislative caving to executive will), but it is difficult to tell because it is more of an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surviellance Act than a law all its own. The same could be said about the Military Commissions Act of 2006; a lot of furor arose over that, but the bill's implications were largely exaggerated by partisans and the media (the MCA is nonetheless a defeat for international humanitarian law). It may be the same for this bill; who knows?

IMO, though, this is more frightening than the MCA. I don't even think Orwell's government could have controlled the masses with the technologies portrayed in 1984. But newer technologies have such potential to be abused, it seems. And that is what this bill is about; using that technology to keep tabs on people. I'm going to look into it more; if this thread doesn't pick up at all, then perhaps I'll post a new one with what I've found about the bill. Perhaps others will have found out other things, and it can be debated further. Until then, I'll start by looking at your thread Justin; it seems like a good place to start.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
It has been said that we get the government we deserve. The trend, as I have defined it, amounts to a drive towards centralized power that goes far beyond anything we've ever seen in the brief 262 history ofh e United States.

It is my opinion that the events of the next 8-12 years will determine whether or not "we the people" gives way to...something else. As startling as as the Bush43 presidency has been, we need to understand that a lot of what we have seen is just a small and bitter taste of what is yet to come. This to me is the most real of real conspiracies. It's not flashy, glamorous, or even 'cool' in the same way that the UFO stuff is seen to be, but it is about as real as you can get.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   
America has been footing a fine line between libertarianism and authoritarianism for a while. For example, the uncovering of COINTELPRO shows to what extent our federal government will turn its national-security apparatus on its own people. Unsurprisingly, 9/11 gave militarists and authoritarians in our government a lot of momentum, like the now defunct PNAC. I wonder, though, with all this pushing by the executive branch if programs like COINTELPRO will be effectively legalized in the future.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join