Bush Justified in Wiretapping

[Chad2000k]

Ok, for the last time, warrants are not applied to international intelligence, only to law enforcement. None of the information gleaned in these wire taps is admissible in a court of law if it doesn't have an attached warrant. The information is used solely in the prevention of terrorist attacks.

sorry gotzoom, i just found this thread, im tryin to do the best i can, but i am gettin there, anyways, hobbit, i agree that warrants arent needed for international reasons and that they cant be used in court, and homeland security only opens it to prevent attacks, well if theres so many letters coming into this country everyday do they have time to open them all??? and plus someone out of this country could be mailing letters for a possible attack into the country and code it to where only the person here would know what is being said for sure, u get my point? so in this case the homeland security wouldnt be stopping anything except for "anthrax" thats in the mail or any type of substance..... so basically in otherwords the mail reading isnt really worth spending time, its just more of bush giving away our tax money to ppl that is willing to do that everyday, sit and open letters and read and then reseal it and put the stamp on it, perferablly u are right gotzoom, why not just reseal it and leave it at that and it would look like the sender happened to forget something and had to reopen it and then reseal it.....also another question do they check mail leaving this country, i know this isnt realistic but in pearl harbour movie, there was a jap if i remember right that like phoned and even mailed pictures back home to the jap islands, if something like pictures of a a major naval base or govt facility be leaving this country for someone to come and like conquer, that could be how the world trade center went down, someone had pics of it and everyone knew pretty much where it was, i know im jumpin out of my head but these are all possible solutions...well ill see what you all say to this...

 

[Hobbit]

sorry gotzoom, i just found this thread, im tryin to do the best i can, but i am gettin there, anyways, hobbit, i agree that warrants arent needed for international reasons and that they cant be used in court, and homeland security only opens it to prevent attacks, well if theres so many letters coming into this country everyday do they have time to open them all??? and plus someone out of this country could be mailing letters for a possible attack into the country and code it to where only the person here would know what is being said for sure, u get my point? so in this case the homeland security wouldnt be stopping anything except for "anthrax" thats in the mail or any type of substance..... so basically in otherwords the mail reading isnt really worth spending time, its just more of bush giving away our tax money to ppl that is willing to do that everyday, sit and open letters and read and then reseal it and put the stamp on it, perferablly u are right gotzoom, why not just reseal it and leave it at that and it would look like the sender happened to forget something and had to reopen it and then reseal it.....also another question do they check mail leaving this country, i know this isnt realistic but in pearl harbour movie, there was a jap if i remember right that like phoned and even mailed pictures back home to the jap islands, if something like pictures of a a major naval base or govt facility be leaving this country for someone to come and like conquer, that could be how the world trade center went down, someone had pics of it and everyone knew pretty much where it was, i know im jumpin out of my head but these are all possible solutions...well ill see what you all say to this...

I'll say you need to puncuate better and capitalize a few words so I can actually distinguish one sentence from the next before I read that crap.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Hey, just to help you out a tad, THROW IN SOME PARAGRAPH breaks. I cannot even begin to read what you posted in that form.

sorry gotzoom, i just found this thread, im tryin to do the best i can, but i am gettin there, anyways, hobbit, i agree that warrants arent needed for international reasons and that they cant be used in court, and homeland security only opens it to prevent attacks, well if theres so many letters coming into this country everyday do they have time to open them all??? and plus someone out of this country could be mailing letters for a possible attack into the country and code it to where only the person here would know what is being said for sure, u get my point? so in this case the homeland security wouldnt be stopping anything except for "anthrax" thats in the mail or any type of substance..... so basically in otherwords the mail reading isnt really worth spending time, its just more of bush giving away our tax money to ppl that is willing to do that everyday, sit and open letters and read and then reseal it and put the stamp on it, perferablly u are right gotzoom, why not just reseal it and leave it at that and it would look like the sender happened to forget something and had to reopen it and then reseal it.....also another question do they check mail leaving this country, i know this isnt realistic but in pearl harbour movie, there was a jap if i remember right that like phoned and even mailed pictures back home to the jap islands, if something like pictures of a a major naval base or govt facility be leaving this country for someone to come and like conquer, that could be how the world trade center went down, someone had pics of it and everyone knew pretty much where it was, i know im jumpin out of my head but these are all possible solutions...well ill see what you all say to this...

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I'll say you need to puncuate better and capitalize a few words so I can actually distinguish one sentence from the next before I read that crap.

EASY Hobbit, easy, thats my job to be rude and crass to the newbies!

 

[Hobbit]

EASY Hobbit, easy, thats my job to be rude and crass to the newbies!

Consider me your assisstant, then. I'm usually not too harsh on the newbies, but man, I didn't even want to look at that post, and it had nothing to do with the actual content.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Consider me your assisstant, then. I'm usually not too harsh on the newbies, but man, I didn't even want to look at that post, and it had nothing to do with the actual content.

I hear ya man. It gives you a headache just glancing at it as you scroll by.

 

[Annie]

And the left howls and howls, knowing all the time, there is nothing 'new' here. Lots of links:

http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5150

Under Clinton, NY Times called surveillance "a necessity"
January 12th, 2006

The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush. They certainly didn’t show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990’s. At that time, the Times called the surveillance “a necessity.”

“If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency.” (Steve Kroft, CBS’ 60 Minutes)

Those words were aired on February 27, 2000 to describe the National Security Agency and an electronic surveillance program called Echelon whose mission, according to Kroft,

“is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon’s computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.”

Echelon was, or is (its existence has been under-reported in the American media), an electronic eavesdropping program conducted by the United States and a few select allies such as the United Kingdom.

Tellingly, the existence of the program was confirmed not by the New York Times or the Washington Post or by any other American media outlet – these were the Clinton years, after all, and the American media generally treats Democrat administrations far more gently than Republican administrations – but by an Australian government official in a statement made to an Australian television news show.

The Times actually defended the existence of Echelon when it reported on the program following the Australians’ revelations.

“Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists….”

And the Times article quoted an N.S.A. official in assuring readers

“...that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.”

Of course, that was on May 27, 1999 and Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush, was president.

Even so, the article did admit that

“...many are concerned that the system could be abused to collect economic and political information.”

Despite the Times’ reluctance to emphasize those concerns, one of the sources used in that same article, Patrick Poole, a lecturer in government and economics at Bannock Burn College in Franklin, Tenn., had already concluded in a study cited by the Times story that the program had been abused in both ways.

“ECHELON is also being used for purposes well outside its original mission. The regular discovery of domestic surveillance targeted at American civilians for reasons of ‘unpopular’ political affiliation or for no probable cause at all… What was once designed to target a select list of communist countries and terrorist states is now indiscriminately directed against virtually every citizen in the world,” Poole concluded.

The Times article also referenced a European Union report on Echelon. The report was conducted after E.U. members became concerned that their citizens’ rights may have been violated. One of the revelations of that study was that the N.S.A. used partner countries’ intelligence agencies to routinely circumvent legal restrictions against domestic spying.

“For example, [author Nicky] Hager has described how New Zealand officials were instructed to remove the names of identifiable UKUSA citizens or companies from their reports, inserting instead words such as ‘a Canadian citizen’ or ‘a US company’. British Comint [Communications intelligence] staff have described following similar procedures in respect of US citizens following the introduction of legislation to limit NSA’s domestic intelligence activities in 1978.”

Further, the E.U. report concluded that intelligence agencies did not feel particularly constrained by legal restrictions requiring search warrants.

“Comint agencies conduct broad international communications ‘trawling’ activities, and operate under general warrants. Such operations do not require or even suppose that the parties they intercept are criminals.”

The current controversy follows a Times report that, since 9/11, U.S. intelligence agencies are eavesdropping at any time on up to 500 people in the U.S. suspected of conducting international communications with terrorists. Under Echelon, the Clinton administration was spying on just about everyone.

“The US National Security Agency (NSA) has created a global spy system, codename ECHELON, which captures and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax, email and telex message sent anywhere in the world,”

Poole summarized in his study on the program.

According to an April, 2000 article in PC World magazine, experts who studied Echelon concluded that

“Project Echelon’s equipment can process 1 million message inputs every 30 minutes.”

In the February, 2000 60 Minutes story, former spy Mike Frost made clear that Echelon monitored practically every conversation – no matter how seemingly innocent – during the Clinton years.

“A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a-a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, ‘Oh, Danny really bombed last night,’ just like that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation w-was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist.”

“This is not urban legend you’re talking about. This actually happened?” Kroft asked.

“Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here.”

Even as the Times defended Echelon as “a necessity” in 1999, evidence already existed that electronic surveillance had previously been misused by the Clinton Administration for political purposes. Intelligence officials told Insight Magazine in 1997 that a 1993 conference of Asian and Pacific world leaders hosted by Clinton in Seattle had been spied on by U.S. intelligence agencies. Further, the magazine reported that information obtained by the spying had been passed on to big Democrat corporate donors to use against their competitors. The Insight story added that the mis-use of the surveillance for political reasons caused the intelligence sources to reveal the operation.

“The only reason it has come to light is because of concerns raised by high-level sources within federal law-enforcement and intelligence circles that the operation was compromised by politicians—includingmid- and senior-level White House aides—either on behalf of or in support of President Clinton and major donor-friends who helped him and the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, raise money.”

So, during the Clinton Administration, evidence existed (all of the information used in this article was available at the time) that:

-an invasive, extensive domestic eavesdropping program was aimed at every U.S. citizen;

-intelligence agencies were using allies to circumvent constitutional restrictions;

-and the administration was selling at least some secret intelligence for political donations.

These revelations were met by the New York Times and others in the mainstream media by the sound of one hand clapping. Now, reports that the Bush Administration approved electronic eavesdropping, strictly limited to international communications, of a relative handful of suspected terrorists have created a media frenzy in the Times and elsewhere.

The Times has historically been referred to as “the Grey Lady.” That grey is beginning to look just plain grimy, and many of us can no longer consider her a lady.

William Tate is a writer and researcher and former broadcast journalist. He lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Don't believe this poll was intended to be scientific. Newsmax provided it to their readers so their readers could indicate how they felt on the issue. I brought it to the board for informatioin because many of us feel the same way those readers do on this issue.

So you acknowledge then that their statement:

"Americans overwhelmingly support President Bush's authorization to the National Security Agency to tap the private conversations of U.S. citizens to search for evidence of terrorist activity, "

is not backed by and factual evidence?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And the left howls and howls, knowing all the time, there is nothing 'new' here. Lots of links:

http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5150

If the only defense you have against an action of your that was wrong is that someone else did it, you have no defense.


"But you're Honor, I'm not the only guy to rob a convenience store!"

 

[Annie]

If the only defense you have against an action of your that was wrong is that someone else did it, you have no defense.


"But you're Honor, I'm not the only guy to rob a convenience store!"

Sorry, it was you speaking of 'lies.' Asshat.

 

[musicman]

If the only defense you have against an action of your that was wrong is that someone else did it, you have no defense.


"But you're Honor, I'm not the only guy to rob a convenience store!"

If that's all you came away from that article with, you are truly, willfully blind.

I don't know how to break this to you, Spiderman, but there's a war on.

 

[Annie]

If that's all you came away from that article with, you are truly, willfully blind.

I don't know how to break this to you, Spiderman, but there's a war on.

He doesn't care. I guess he figures it can come here and miss him and those he loves.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If that's all you came away from that article with, you are truly, willfully blind.

I don't know how to break this to you, Spiderman, but there's a war on.

I don't know how to break this to you musicman, but the Constitution still applies during war.

 

[Annie]

I don't know how to break this to you musicman, but the Constitution still applies during war.

don't know how to break this to you Spidey, but the Constitution is not a suicide pact nor an agreement to surrender.

 

[Chad2000k]

don't know how to break this to you Spidey, but the Constitution is not a suicide pact nor an agreement to surrender.

The constitution is supposed to be followed under war conditions, but i have a question. I know our soldiers are like accused and charged of raping an iraqi or somewhat. I know theres prolly a military rule of conduct or something. But techincally the constition to the United States DOES not work overseas in iraq bec its rules for the United States and its territories. Im not tryin to start something its just something that i saw here and thought of.

 

[Gunny]

The constitution is supposed to be followed under war conditions, but i have a question. I know our soldiers are like accused and charged of raping an iraqi or somewhat. I know theres prolly a military rule of conduct or something. But techincally the constition to the United States DOES not work overseas in iraq bec its rules for the United States and its territories. Im not tryin to start something its just something that i saw here and thought of.

ALL military personnel, whether here or abroad, are subject to the articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); which, in plain English is military law. It is based on the Constitution, with a lean toward military-specific rules.

Whether or not a military person is turned over to a foreign nation for committing local/domestic crimes is determined by the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with that particular Nation. In my experience within Nations that have an established government, the military person(s) usually stand trial in the court of the Nation they committed the crime in, under that Nation's laws.

The crimes committed at Abu Ghraib were done prior to there beign and Iraqi government, and they were offenses against POWs, which is punishable under military law. The were punished according to the UCMJ.

Crimes committed after the establishment of the Iraqi gov't will depend on what kind of SOFA agreement the US has with them.

 

[Gunny]

Why should we believe them? Can you give me a single example in history of government without oversight that always acted benevolently? The history in this country is simply overwhelming: without a free press able to get access to information about the behavior of government, government acts badly. The current program will almost certainly be found unconstitutional, especially with the abuses of it that have already come to light, because it makes it impossible for a free press to function. Bush's secrecy thing is already extreme--he is blocking the release of all sorts of papers and the second part of the 9/11 investigation.

No one's answering my question, apparently, because there simply isn't a good answer; there's no reason for us not to keep, at minimum, a list of who has been wiretapped and why, approved by a judge or reviewed by a bipartisan Congressional committee. Otherwise, we'll simply never know what Big Brother did, and we'll enter a very dangerous age in terms of privacy rights: we won't have any. That may make you feel safe. It gives me the creeps.

Mariner.

 

[Chad2000k]

ALL military personnel, whether here or abroad, are subject to the articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); which, in plain English is military law. It is based on the Constitution, with a lean toward military-specific rules.

Whether or not a military person is turned over to a foreign nation for committing local/domestic crimes is determined by the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with that particular Nation. In my experience within Nations that have an established government, the military person(s) usually stand trial in the court of the Nation they committed the crime in, under that Nation's laws.

The crimes committed at Abu Ghraib were done prior to there beign and Iraqi government, and they were offenses against POWs, which is punishable under military law. The were punished according to the UCMJ.

Crimes committed after the establishment of the Iraqi gov't will depend on what kind of SOFA agreement the US has with them.

Thanx gunny thats the concept i missed! I'm not that strong at military laws and whatnot even though i watch JAG a lot but u know.

 

[Mariner]

interesting. Roberts, who is now seeking more oversight of eavesdropping than Bush wants, is the very same person who has been Bush's great ally in stalling inquiry into the administration's attempts to pressure the intelligence community about WMD's. I guess at a certain point, even if it requires bucking party discipline, the Founders' brilliant system of checks and balances begins to work:

The New York Times
February 18, 2006
Senate Chairman Splits With Bush on Spy Program

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 — The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Friday that he wanted the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program brought under the authority of a special intelligence court, a move President Bush has argued is not necessary.

The chairman, Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, said he had some concerns that the court could not issue warrants quickly enough to keep up with the needs of the eavesdropping program. But he said he would like to see those details worked out.

Mr. Roberts also said he did not believe that exempting the program from the purview of the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "would be met with much support" on Capitol Hill. Yet that is exactly the approach the Bush administration is pursuing.

"I think it should come before the FISA court, but I don't know how it works," Mr. Roberts said. "You don't want to have a situation where you have capability that doesn't work well with the FISA court, in terms of speed and agility and hot pursuit. So we have to solve that problem."

Mr. Roberts spoke in an interview a day after announcing that the White House, in a turnabout, had agreed to open discussions about changing surveillance law. By Friday, with Mr. Roberts apparently stung by accusations that he had caved to White House pressure not to investigate the eavesdropping without warrants, it appeared the talks could put the White House and Congress on a collision course.

White House officials favor a proposal offered by another Republican senator, Mike DeWine of Ohio, whose bill would exempt the eavesdropping from the intelligence court. Mr. DeWine wants small subcommittees to oversee the wiretapping, but Mr. Roberts said he would like the full House and Senate Intelligence Committees to have regular briefings.

"I think it's the function and the oversight responsibility of the committee," he said, adding, "That might sound strange coming from me."

Mr. Roberts's comments were surprising because he has been a staunch defender of the program and an ally of White House efforts to resist a full-scale Senate investigation.

* * *

This is the first half of the article. See the rest at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/p...=1140238800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Mariner

 

[Chad2000k]

interesting. Roberts, who is now seeking more oversight of eavesdropping than Bush wants, is the very same person who has been Bush's great ally in stalling inquiry into the administration's attempts to pressure the intelligence community about WMD's. I guess at a certain point, even if it requires bucking party discipline, the Founders' brilliant system of checks and balances begins to work:

The New York Times
February 18, 2006
Senate Chairman Splits With Bush on Spy Program

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 — The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Friday that he wanted the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program brought under the authority of a special intelligence court, a move President Bush has argued is not necessary.

The chairman, Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, said he had some concerns that the court could not issue warrants quickly enough to keep up with the needs of the eavesdropping program. But he said he would like to see those details worked out.

Mr. Roberts also said he did not believe that exempting the program from the purview of the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "would be met with much support" on Capitol Hill. Yet that is exactly the approach the Bush administration is pursuing.

"I think it should come before the FISA court, but I don't know how it works," Mr. Roberts said. "You don't want to have a situation where you have capability that doesn't work well with the FISA court, in terms of speed and agility and hot pursuit. So we have to solve that problem."

Mr. Roberts spoke in an interview a day after announcing that the White House, in a turnabout, had agreed to open discussions about changing surveillance law. By Friday, with Mr. Roberts apparently stung by accusations that he had caved to White House pressure not to investigate the eavesdropping without warrants, it appeared the talks could put the White House and Congress on a collision course.

White House officials favor a proposal offered by another Republican senator, Mike DeWine of Ohio, whose bill would exempt the eavesdropping from the intelligence court. Mr. DeWine wants small subcommittees to oversee the wiretapping, but Mr. Roberts said he would like the full House and Senate Intelligence Committees to have regular briefings.

"I think it's the function and the oversight responsibility of the committee," he said, adding, "That might sound strange coming from me."

Mr. Roberts's comments were surprising because he has been a staunch defender of the program and an ally of White House efforts to resist a full-scale Senate investigation.

* * *

This is the first half of the article. See the rest at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/p...=1140238800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Mariner

The gov is messed up, and i still dont get why people voted him into office on relection when he failed to do anything big for the sept. 11?