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

Originally posted by dgtempe
Judge Napolitano- Fox Analyst

The good judge who is so pro-Bush was on Fox and being interviewed by Bill O'really. Do you know what he said????

He said what Bush is doing is against the LAW

You couldn't be more wrong about Judge Napolitano. He might not be anti-Bush in the sense of so many here, but he can hardly be called "so pro-Bush," as you put it. Judge Napolitano's book is entitled Constitutional Chaos and is a scathing indictment of the Patriot Act and he has been very vocal in his opposition on Fox News, where he plugs his book freely.

Napolitano is the senior judicial analyst for Fox News and is a regular on The Big Story with John Gibson and he will definitely be back. He's very popular because he is so candid.

[edit on 2005/12/18 by GradyPhilpott]

His speech tonight was outstanding- he read very well.

Why didnt he mention this little spying problem? So dissapointing! Seriously, he did a good job tonight.

It was humble for once.

Thank you for clarifying that one for me. I hear him regularly and have never heard him say anything opposing the Bush administration.

He's not necessarily opposing the administration, he was talking about the laws of this country.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Imagine walking into the DA's office and demanding a complete list of the evidence he holds against a criminal.

That's not hard to imagine if you're the defending attorney. In fact, it's your right. But yes, just anyone can't- because of laws regarding the right to privacy.

Or imagine walking up to Dr. Smith and demanding to know whether one of his patients has HIV.

Right to privacy again. Do you not see how eavesdropping might infringe on that right?

We have laws for reasons- one of which is to protect our fundamental rights. The examples you give only highlight that fact. I fail to see how they provide any support for wiretaps.

At the risk of sounding self-important, it's attitudes like mine that gave us the bill of rights and our other legal protections against infringments by the state. While actions taken in the name of national security might often be valid to protect us, they require the highest scrutiny. The NY Times should be commended for doing what the founding fathers expected a free press to do- remaining vigilant.

The burden is on the government to explain just how these infringements are protecting us, and frankly they haven't done a good job. I suppose they expect that enough of us will assume that governments only have the best interests of their citizens at heart. While the US government may not be as bad as, say, North Korea's in that regard, it's because of the rights enshrined in law that we have that have kept it so- as well as the people enforcing those rights and calling the government on any action that implicates those rights.

Imagine instead being a criminal suspect, and asking to see the evidence against you, and being told you can't. That's what is happening, and that's why we need to remain vigilant.


[edit on 19-12-2005 by koji_K]

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by jsobecky
Imagine walking into the DA's office and demanding a complete list of the evidence he holds against a criminal.

That's not hard to imagine if you're the defending attorney. In fact, it's your right. But yes, just anyone can't- because of laws regarding the right to privacy.

That is so obvious that I didn't include it for just that reason. But of course, that's not the point. The point is whether we as a citizen have the right to know everything about anything in our country.The point is whether leaks do more harm than good when national security is involved. Or personal security.

Except when the spotlight is turned upon yourself. Then you can use the right to privacy bromide.

A few years ago, a young man who had appeared on a TV talk show killed a male guest who had professed his love for the young man.Your attitude holds that we have a right to know about somebody's sexual fantasy, regardless of the outcome of it being exposed.

You're looking at the other side of the issue in this matter, the side that will be debated ad naseum by talking heads, etc. That's fine.

I'm trying to discuss the bigger picture of the effects of leaking everything just because we have the supposed "right" to do so.

We have laws for reasons- one of which is to protect our fundamental rights. The examples you give only highlight that fact. I fail to see how they provide any support for wiretaps.

Once again, you miss the entire point. I'm not trying to provide support for wiretaps. I'm saying that the "leak" is not the same as diligence. It it more of an attention getting tactic, most often politically motivated, and most often harmful to our nation's good.

Originally posted by koji_K
Right to privacy again. Do you not see how eavesdropping might infringe on that right?

What right, exactly? This is not a 4th Amendment issue.

We have laws for reasons- one of which is to protect our fundamental rights. The examples you give only highlight that fact. I fail to see how they provide any support for wiretaps.

As I pointed out on the previous page [second post made on that page], your rights, as a "US person," were not or may not have been violated. Look at the topic title, "Bush Allowed NSA to Spy on U.S. International Calls, then compare that to where I provided a link to the pertinent law, labeled as 50 USC 1802, that directly allows such and under what circumstances. Those whose rights that may have been violated were those who did not fall under the definition for "US person".
Additionally, this might prove an interesting read?
The FISA Act And The Definition Of 'US Persons'

Now here is the question to you: If a number of bloggers and others can provided such information to the public concerning the governments ability to use NSA to monitor non-"US persons", then why cannot the New York Times do enough research to include this or have it mentioned while revealing such damning and leaked information as they just have??

At the risk of sounding self-important, it's attitudes like mine that gave us the bill of rights and our other legal protections against infringments by the state.

At the risk of upsetting you, it is also those with attitudes like yours that do not understand the laws and what they do and do not fully allow, say, or imply. It is those with attitudes like yours that do not read the fine print.

While actions taken in the name of national security might often be valid to protect us, they require the highest scrutiny.

Agreed.

The NY Times should be commended for doing what the founding fathers expected a free press to do- remaining vigilant.

No, they should not, furthermore, quite bringing the Founding Fathers into this, because as with another topic on the Founding Fathers and what they would have to say on stuff like this, half the original Founding Fathers more than likely would have allowed such. This is not a freedom of speech or freedom of the press issue, it is a national security issue.
If all this pans out that no rights were violated, that no laws were broken, then the new York Times and the individual(s) that leaked this out for political purposes, and not to protect your rights, should be investigated and/or persecuted to the FULLEST extent of the law for the blatant breach of National Security that this obviously is.

The burden is on the government to explain just how these infringements are protecting us, and frankly they haven't done a good job.

Just as the burden of the proof should likewise fall or be upon the New York Times and their ever-persistent unnamed source(s). If this had been something major concerning an individual and it panned out or proved in the end to be incorrect, etc., there is great merit and possibility that the New York Times and said yet to be revealed unnamed source(s) would be facing a slander and/or defamation of character law suit for major, major bucks. Bet.






seekerof

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Wait a minute, Seekerof, the New York Times refrained, at the request of the White House, from publishing this story for a year. During that period of time they did further research, and you're wanting to convince us (and I assume this through your argument and the link you provided to support it) that this article was some "knee-jerk" reaction that was not vetted?

If my teenage daughter couldn't get the facts straight in a year I'd take her behind the wood shed. And if, after a year of investigating this story the New York Times couldn't get the fact as to whether U.S. citizens were involved in these wire-taps or not, well, they may need more than verbal tongue-lashings.

Bush's own supporters are admitting that he circumnavigated the FISA system and placed himself as requestor and grantor in these actions....they're just fading that fact with a request for further looksies into the matter.

Originally posted by Valhall
Wait a minute, Seekerof, the New York Times refrained, at the request of the White House, from publishing this story for a year. During that period of time they did further research, and you're wanting to convince us (and I assume this through your argument and the link you provided to support it) that this article was some "knee-jerk" reaction that was not vetted?

And likewise, your trying to convince me that the New York Times "researched" this? Your basing this upon what exactly? Simple common knowledge or a unnamed source? I can show a current put to press New York Times article, within this month, where the New York Times did not research or validate a story before putting it to press, but you can somehow assure me and others, while attempting to discredit what I have mentioned and linked, that the New York Times did their homework on this issue and matter, huh?

Bush's own supporters are admitting that he circumnavigated the FISA system and placed himself as requestor and grantor in these actions....they're just fading that fact with a request for further looksies into the matter.

In what amount of numbers and percentages, Valhall?
Generalized mentions are not cutting it for me, especially when I just posted a link to a very reputable "Bush-supporter", among another, who has not admitted such, in fact contesting to the contrary.





seekerof

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Seekerof- I'm a third year law student, and while I don't believe this gives me any greater claim to knowledge of the law than anyone else, I know all about the fine print, believe me. I also know you rarely can find one statute and take it out of the context of our many other laws to support a proposition.

Our rights to privacy, for example, are not merely to be found in the 4th Amendment, which is why I did not mention such. The New York Times, to my knowledge, has done their research. Neither they nor I have made any explicit claim that Bush or his office broke the law. Instead, what I am claiming, and what I believe the NY Times is claiming, is simply what has been done, and that this warrants further investigation before we can deduce whether or not this is legal, the acts of some bloggers notwithstanding.

Also, I'm not clear as to what you are showing with the laws you mentioned, as the NY Times article clearly states that Americans were (or may have, at least) been spied on... I'm assuming this falls under the definition you pasted.

The blog you quoted says, "Since the targets within the US got identified through intelligence developed through captures of al-Qaeda agents and their equipment, it seems rather unlikely that they had contacts with many US-born American citizens." Yet, the N.Y. Times articles clearly states that Americans were spied on. Looks like a case of he said, she said.

Jsobecky- I am not claiming that we have a right to know everything. I accept that for national security reasons, there are things the public should not know. However, the public, and the press, should not become complacent and accept that anything the government does is going to be for the better.

If the law has been broken, or even if there is the slightest appearance that the law has been broken, it needs to be investigated. If it takes a NY Times article to bring this fact to our attention, then I say good job NY Times. If the government has acted within the law, then it has nothing to fear.

I can understand your point, however. Perhaps this was a politically motivated or financially motivated tactic by the Times rather than true vigilance, and perhaps it might adversely effect our security. I am willing to err on the side of liberty rather than security, and so I take the Time's actions as being fully within the rights and needs of a free press. I suppose that's everyone's individual choice. Leaks may do some harm in the short term, but they also force the government to explain its actions, and in doing so, force it to become more accountable.

If these wiretaps have protected our country, and are doing so, then I will await evidence to that effect which we have every right to recieve (not dealing with specifics, of course).

Certainly, the leaker should be held to account before the law, but that same law governs our government as well. To my knowledge, no specifics were mentioned in the Times article that could jeapordize ongoing operations. Leaks, aside from doing harm, can also lead to greater oversight and greater accountability. Were it not for the leak, an ineffective, illegal, or ill-motivated policy might continue forever. In the face of unprecedented government security, perhaps leaks are the only opportunities we have to keep our government- or parts of it- in check.

Of course, realistically, wiretaps will continue, and so will a whole lot more that will never be leaked to the public.

[edit on 19-12-2005 by koji_K]

Originally posted by koji_K
If the law has been broken, or even if there is the slightest appearance that the law has been broken, it needs to be investigated. If it takes a NY Times article to bring this fact to our attention, then I say good job NY Times. If the government has acted within the law, then it has nothing to fear.

While I submit that alot of what you mention is well said and valid, koji_K, I have major issue with the New York Times. This, I openly admit, may be due in part to my own inherent dislike of their inner-workings, operating procedures, and agenda-driven motivations.

My contestation with this is that the New York Times news release on this matter insinuated/insinuates or implied/implies that the Bush adminstration, specifically Bush, did in fact break the law(s). This can undoubtedly be contested either way, for or against. Nonetheless, their article has political opponents along with a moderate amount of average everyday citizens foaming at the mouth over supposed rights being infringed upon. Accordingly, in all the uproar, probably much to the New York Times glee, there are existing and standing laws that allow such to take place, as I have linked and quoted. Interestingly, the New York Sun makes mention of the same thing.

Among the other issues being brought forth here by everyone on infringement of rights and government accountability, this issue illustrates the 'a' typical knee-jerk reactions of most to such mentions, despite what prevailing standing laws say or mention. The same thing happened over the Patriot Act and is now occurring over this issue and matter. Is concern merited: sure. Are the 'a' typical knee-jerk reactions, as seen in the responses in this topic, merited: no, when one looks at this objectively instead of subjectively. Key figures in the Democrat uproar over this were well aware of what the Bush Administration was doing---nothing mentioned then, but now, all of a sudden, with the release of this New York Times article on the matter, those same Democrats and some Republicans are demanding an inquiry investigation. Simply astounding and likewise befuddling.

There is a undeniable political motivation here and it is sickening, disturbing, and hypocritical. We can tolerate and allow such when not a war, but once at war, such becomes a violation of rights and freedoms, and simply the Bush adminstrations doing and fault.

Anyhow, despite my own disagreements here and there, well said, koji_K.




seekerof

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

And likewise, your trying to convince me that the New York Times "researched" this? Your basing this upon what exactly? Simple common knowledge or a unnamed source? I can show a current put to press New York Times article, within this month, where the New York Times did not research or validate a story before putting it to press, but you can somehow assure me and others, while attempting to discredit what I have mentioned and linked, that the New York Times did their homework on this issue and matter, huh?

It's stated in the article, Seekerof. Unless you're setting yourself up as judge and enforcer like Bush is currently being accused of doing in this process, there's been no verdict that their statement that during the year of delay they did "further reporting" is an outright lie.

In what amount of numbers and percentages, Valhall?
Generalized mentions are not cutting it for me, especially when I just posted a link to a very reputable "Bush-supporter", among another, who has not admitted such, in fact contesting to the contrary.

Numbers or percentages, whatever, Seekerof. Did I say a number or percentage? No I didn't.

Top Republicans also called for hearings.

"We have to resolve the issue to show Americans we are nation of law not outcomes," Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on CBS' "Face The Nation." "I would like to see the intelligence committee look into it."

"There is a theme here that is a bit disturbing," the Judiciary Committee member said.

"If you allow him [Bush] to make findings, he becomes the court. You can't allow him or others to play the role of the court because then others adopt that model when they hold our troops."

Sen. John McCain also said that if the matter goes to a congressional panel that the intelligence community should investigate.

"You've got to be very careful about putting into the open situation" sensitive information "that would be helpful to al Qaeda," he said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, told "CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" there were many questions but cautioned against politicizing the matter.

"I'd like to inquire why they didn't go to the Federal Intelligence Security Act," [FISA] which sets up a special court to authorize national security wiretaps," the senator said. "That's a real question they have to answer."

www.cnn.com...

Specter urged caution but said he wanted to know what legal authority the White House had used to launch the programme.

"Let's not jump to too many conclusions. Let's look at it analytically. Let's have oversight hearings. And let's find out exactly what went on," he said on CNN's Late Edition.

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said, "I take him (Bush) at his word" that the order was critical to saving lives and consistent with US law and the Constitution."

"The president, I think, has the right to do this, and yet, I don't know why he didn't go" through court procedures, McCain told ABC's This Week.

www.nzherald.co.nz...

Please note that McCain's statements above imply that Bush ran the NSA wiretapping past "leaders of Congress" BUT apparently didn't run the fact he was going to circumnavigate FISA past them!

And according to this report, the revelation of the administration's abuse of these powers is what actually led to the rejection of the renewal of portions of the PATRIOT Act - by both democrats and republicans:

His admission came a day after the Senate failed to pass expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism laws passed after September 11, which Democrats and several Republicans said gave law enforcement and security agencies powers that threatened basic civil liberties.

Several senators said they had refused to support the expiring provisions because of the revelation that Mr Bush had authorised what they considered illegal wire taps.

In his radio address, Mr Bush angrily accused the dissenting senators of putting the security of the US at risk by failing to pass the legislation.

He said all wiretaps authorised by him were legal and had been approved by the Justice Department, which had ruled that the President, as commander in chief, had the power under the constitution to use wiretaps in the "war against terrorism". What is more, Mr Bush said, senior members of Congress from both parties had been briefed about the wiretapping program and had not raised any objections.

But Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, said the wiretapping seemed to be "inappropriate" and that his committee would hold hearings on the program soon to determine its scope and its legality.

www.smh.com.au...

Here is a Boston Globe article that reviews how past Supreme Court rulings don't show very good odds on whether Bush's logic in this matter will hold up to a constitutionality test:

Past rulings don't support Bush's use of war powers

This is ironic, that we find ourselves discussing the issue of the White House apparently over-reaching their powers, and apparently via a Presidential Executive Order, when you were one of the people that poo-poo'd off my concerns in this article:

The Real Power of WMDs

where I discuss how Bush had taken a much broader and ambiguous language in his Executive Order 13382 than previous administrations. I quote myself:

Section 1 of Executive Order 13382 includes the U.S. Citizen.

And I am still "poo-pooing" off your concerns, Valhall.
You do well in presenting your arguments and positions, I will not contest such, but because you do, does not imply that I have to agree with each and every one.

There is validity to both sides of the argument on this matter, and that is undeniable, despite some seemingly insisting to the contrary.

I have said my peace, presented my findings, just as others, including yourself have done. Having said as much, there is really nothing more for me to present or contest, because in doing so, we began the parade of simply going around in circles while never reaching a moderate and objective conclusion.







seekerof

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Having said as much, there is really nothing more for me to present or contest, because in doing so, we began the parade of simply going around in circles while never reaching a moderate and objective conclusion.

Debate on this issue is critical, and must be pressed hard by any and all who value the principals on which the United States was born.

The only palatable possible "moderate and objective conclusion" that can possibly come from this is that the U.S. government follow the "rule of law" beyond simply using the phrase in a sentence and abide by the existing laws of the land.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Debate on this issue is critical, and must be pressed hard by any and all who value the principals on which the United States was born.

No doubt.

The only palatable possible "moderate and objective conclusion" that can possibly come from this is that the U.S. government follow the "rule of law" beyond simply using the phrase in a sentence and abide by the existing laws of the land.

As such, and withstanding already presented and exposed pre-conceived notions of guilt, I have yet to see evidences on/in this matter that absolutely shows or indicates that the "rule of law" was not adherred to or broken. Objectivity is not necessarily presenting the evidences that purposely suit your perspective or take on this matter, but is when all available evidences, for or against, are gleaned to arrive at such conclusions.





seekerof

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Seekerof
Having said as much, there is really nothing more for me to present or contest, because in doing so, we began the parade of simply going around in circles while never reaching a moderate and objective conclusion.

Debate on this issue is critical, and must be pressed hard by any and all who value the principals on which the United States was born.

The only palatable possible "moderate and objective conclusion" that can possibly come from this is that the U.S. government follow the "rule of law" beyond simply using the phrase in a sentence and abide by the existing laws of the land.

If debate is critical then please include similar incidents of past presidents, including, Linclon, FDR, LBJ, Truman, Clinton and GW. The facts are simple, no laws were broken...............

The entire newpaper story was nothing but a sucessful attempt kill the Patriot act.

Originally posted by Seekerof
I have yet to see evidences on/in this matter that absolutely shows or indicates that the "rule of law" was not adherred to or broken.

Which is exactly why further examination is essential. On the surface, we have cacophony of layman and experts chiming in that there were indeed legal run-arounds in these "approvals" and that the Patriot Act provided the ability for warrants within hours. Under the surface, there are increasing rumors that the "surveillance" extended well beyond simple wiretaps... I'm sure these will either be confirmed or tossed aside as debate and discussion continues.

Originally posted by thermopolis
If debate is critical then please include similar incidents of past presidents, including, Linclon, FDR, LBJ, Truman, Clinton and GW

Unsavory historical events of ethically skewed clandestine operations approved by other administrations do not make the current events any more savory, nor do they provide license to repeat history.

I think the NY times Did the American people a favor by stating the facts. That with the events that happened with the wiretappings why would need to be pushing of the patriot act? I know some people really don’t have a problem with the monitoring of new citizens or immigrants. But I would like to contend what if it was you they were looking at? The only thing that is between you and them is nothing now. No courts partial or impartial. No monitoring groups, not any laws to say what is right and wrong. They basically can do what they want. The government can even take you to another country and “torture” you. You may be a red-blooded citizen but many on this planet are trying to do the right thing. For instance I might not be seen as a terrorist but I might be seen as a drug dealer or drug user so in the war on terror I have nobody really looking at me, but in the war on drugs even through I have done nothing I might be scrutinized many many times without any real evidence that I am breaking the law. I have a real problem with that, as should you.

What if we change the names around? What if America was Russia or China and the fighting theater was Taiwan, Tibet or Tajikistan. Would you be so gung ho to let the super power “solve “ the problem? What if China said that in order to preserve that “way of life in China” they would have to retake Taiwan? How would you feel?

The funny thing when I mention that the founding fathers might have been looked at like terrorist and traitors when in the process of liberation the American people. These same people have noting to say. You might want to rethink how you treat people. To my knowledge there are no major groups in America that want to partition our country into a new country. So why are we there when we cant get here right?

Unless you have something to hide from the govt of the United States relating to eavesdropping, ooo let say child pornography, etc. Then you should not be complaining except those who are trying to past child pornography under the noses of the FBI,etc. The govt under Bush has allowed taps on people they deemed as possible suspects on the war on terror. Not FBI Director Hoover who is paranoid about everyone. This eavesdropping is meant for the people suspected of being linked to terror groups who are linked to Al Qaeda, etc. Not to mention that Congress did in fact approve such action as well.


www.epic.org...

SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.
Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:
`(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); or'.

SEC. 105. EXPANSION OF NATIONAL ELECTRONIC CRIME TASK FORCE INITIATIVE.
The Director of the United States Secret Service shall take appropriate actions to develop a national network of electronic crime task forces, based on the New York Electronic Crimes Task Force model, throughout the United States, for the purpose of preventing, detecting, and investigating various forms of electronic crimes, including potential terrorist attacks against critical infrastructure and financial payment systems.
SEC. 106. PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.
Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that subparagraph), by striking `; and' and inserting a comma and the following:
`by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by inserting `, block during the pendency of an investigation' after `investigate'; and
(ii) by striking `interest;' and inserting `interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and';
(C) by striking `by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States`; and
(D) by inserting at the end the following:
`(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.'; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following:
`(c) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- In any judicial review of a determination made under this section, if the determination was based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act) such information may be submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera. This subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review.'.

Maybe its just another jab against the Patriot Act or something. But either it be Bush or Clinton let say relating to Echelon, I dont know why people are so over this one. Possibly political maybe?

linkWith Democrats and Republicans alike questioning whether President Bush had the legal authority to approve the program, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argued that Congress had essentially given Bush broad powers to order the domestic surveillance after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

"Our position is that the authorization to use military force which was passed by the Congress shortly after Sept. 11 constitutes that authority," said Gonzales. He called the monitoring "probably the most classified program that exists in the United States government."

Gen. Michael Hayden, deputy national intelligence director who was head of the NSA when the program began in October 2001, said, "I can say unequivocally we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available."

In offering only a glimpse into the program, Hayden said the monitoring would take place for a shorter period of time and be less intrusive than what is normally authorized by the secret surveillance court. Yet he acknowledged that the program is more aggressive than other government monitoring.

How can it be any different like the last time?

Originally posted by deltaboy
Unless you have something to hide from the govt of the United States relating to eavesdropping, ooo let say child pornography, etc. Then you should not be complaining except those who are trying to past child pornography under the noses of the FBI,etc.

On that issue, you and I are in strong opposition. While I don't have a huge problem with the NSA's newish powers (the only real change is that they no longer have to get warrants before tapping lines, but afterward have to report to congress justifying their actions and their use of the ability to avoid the court), I do have a problem with that justification for not caring.

We are living in a country that is moving closer and closer to ideas becoming illegal. It used to just be this political correctness thing, but now both sides of the political spectrum have taken up the PC torch in attempting to silence unpopular ideas legally. I guess the Republicans figured if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em.

So yeah, today this power is only being used for foreign terrorists. Another chink in our personal liberty armor. However, what about tomorrow? What if Republicans gain 70% majority of all of government, and they start mandating illegal political ideas, or creating thought crime? What if the Democrats regain the majority and do the same? Don't complain about the loss of our rights, because all you have to do is not be an illegal Republican/Democrat and you'll be fine.

Think that's out there? Think I kind of jumped off the deep end in thinking that there could ever be legal thought crime in the US? It has begun in Western Europe, Canada and even here in the US (recently a pastor was jailed in Sweden because he mentioned a verse from first Corinthians (in the Bible) that stated homosexuality was wrong -- it was hate speech, Canada and England have instituted hate speech laws, California has created a pseudo-law for local politicians stating that they cannot say anything considered negative about homosexuality -- including banning gay marriage -- while campaigning, etc.)

Support this because it is helping us win the war on terror. Do not support this because you have nothing to fear as you're not breaking the law. You're not...yet.

Para!!! If you are still watching this thread, this is for you... Oh and JSOBecky too.

Have just watched Bushie's news conference. While I still disagree with that is going on in the NSA, there have been other and greater sins promulgated in the name of state security.

However, having said that, after watching Bushie... I think he is a common man, probably just about average, maybe, caught up in the greater acts being played out on the world stage. I will, however, based on what he was saying, stand down and give him an opportunity to do that which he says he is trying to do.

Understand this, though, the man is edging into areas where bad things can happen... I still think power corrupts, and based on things he has said, and done in the past, in my opinion, he is corrupt.

Just thought you ought to know that Para.

JSOBecky. Your understanding of politics is pretty much facile, and full of slanted or stilted vistas. You were so quick to jump on me for being a democrat, and per your own statements, a hack put up by some other people to be a front or a mouth piece. Interesting that you didn't think that someone could come on here and present arguments, shallow or otherwise, that could be individual, original, thought out, and not towing your party line, whatever that may be.

Finally, at the real risk of banishment from ATS, understand this JSOBecky... The last comment I made was not one of conciliation, nor one of defeat in the face of your onslaught... But I was laughing at you. Now... Go play with your sistah!