Even *more* on wire taps

[widebody911]

Ok, so we have FISA wire taps, which can be obtained retroactively, so as not to impede the investigation of hot leads. These retro-warrants are apparently given out like candy - only handful had been turned down in 30 years.

The burning question is why GWB wasn't using them. Well, it seems he tried at first, but when a few of them were denied, he said f*ck it and back-doored the process.

Now, the new burning question is: why wouldn't the FISA court - who had been giving these out pretty liberally, deny or require modifications to the ones GWB was submitting? We'll probably never know, but my suspicion is that it wasn't terrorists that he was going after.

...ince 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20051227-13333100-bc-us-surveillance-crn.xml

And now that it's coming out that GWB had set the NSA on UN diplomats, it's starting to become clearer

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1227-26.htm
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/After_domestic_spying_reports_U.S._spying_1227.htm l

Impeachment isn't good enough for this sleazeball.

[cowtown]

And now every incarcerated terrorist is going to appeal his case. And sue GWB for illegally obtaining evidence. GREAT job, W.

What was he thinking?

[jorian]

W has others to do the thinking.

[Hugh R]

Ok, so let me get this right Your OK with suspected terrorists who enter our country illegally having rights of any kind?

[HardDrive]

Originally posted by Hugh R
Ok, so let me get this right Your OK with suspected terrorists who enter our country illegally having rights of any kind?

YES. I support all persons, no matter how evil, having due process right under the law if they are in the United States.

If we catch Osama in Cleveland next week, he deserves a fair trial under US law.

[ed martin]

Originally posted by HardDrive
YES. I support all persons, no matter how evil, having due process right under the law if they are in the United States.

If we catch Osama in Cleveland next week, he deserves a fair trial under US law.

Oh brother.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by widebody911
Ok, so we have FISA wire taps, which can be obtained retroactively, so as not to impede the investigation of hot leads. These retro-warrants are apparently given out like candy - only handful had been turned down in 30 years.

The burning question is why GWB wasn't using them. Well, it seems he tried at first, but when a few of them were denied, he said f*ck it and back-doored the process.

Now, the new burning question is: why wouldn't the FISA court - who had been giving these out pretty liberally, deny or require modifications to the ones GWB was submitting? We'll probably never know, but my suspicion is that it wasn't terrorists that he was going after.
......

The answer to your question is obvious to a person with more than half a brain. If you capture a terrorist with a laptop full of phone numbers, if any belong to known or suspected terrorists...a warrant is easy under FISA. If you find a new number of a person not already known as a terrorist...under FISA, you would probably not have enough evidence to get the warrant and monitor. The whole intent is to find unknown terrorists (sleepers)...not ones we already have significant evidence against.

Obviously only a few have been turned down previously because they were only used to monitor known spies/agents...not identify unknowns...like the liberals "modern minutemen" on Sept 11.

[slakjaw]

Originally posted by HardDrive
YES. I support all persons, no matter how evil, having due process right under the law if they are in the United States.

If we catch Osama in Cleveland next week, he deserves a fair trial under US law.

This is what the US Constitution supports.

The problem is that there are too many people that do not support the US Constitution.

[slakjaw]

Now, the new burning question is: why wouldn't the FISA court - who had been giving these out pretty liberally, deny or require modifications to the ones GWB was submitting? We'll probably never know, but my suspicion is that it wasn't terrorists that he was going after.


I find this quite interesting!

[legion]

The way I read it, the Constitution guarantees rights to citizens. It doesn't say anything about anyone else.

[slakjaw]

Originally posted by legion
The way I read it, the Constitution guarantees rights to citizens. It doesn't say anything about anyone else.

hmmm, That is true

but,

Why do we have to keep the suspected terrorists down in gitmo then? It would seem that we could just jail them here in America without due process.

Also, does that mean we could just lynch Osama?

[Flatbutt1]

Originally posted by slakjaw
It would seem that we could just jail them here in America without due process.

They'd last about as long as a child abuser in gen pop. Hmmm . . .good idea!

[slakjaw]

Originally posted by flatbutt
They'd last about as long as a child abuser in gen pop. Hmmm . . .good idea!

LMAO

[onewhippedpuppy]

Lynching would be too kind to Osama.

I don't see what the big deal is about monitoring UN diplomats, what with the recent scandals that have pretty well destroyed the little credibility it had left. Considering the aid they game Saddam to buy weapons, your damn right we should monitor them. Who else is getting money that shouldn't?

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Hugh R
Ok, so let me get this right Your OK with suspected terrorists who enter our country illegally having rights of any kind?

They are illegal, how can they have any rights ??? No, am not going to torture or drag them behind a truck but they have a choice, go to jail or return home, period!

JOeA

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by HardDrive
YES. I support all persons, no matter how evil, having due process right under the law if they are in the United States.

If we catch Osama in Cleveland next week, he deserves a fair trial under US law.

Even if he blows up Seattle, you want to give him the same rights as a American citizen??

[Rodeo]

I don’t care how atrocious the crime, every person put on trial in the United States of America is entitled to a full and fair trial.

You know why? For us. For America. For the citizens of America to know that we continue to be a beacon of democracy and justice.

If you want frontier justice, move to some frontier. We are a civilization, and for a civilization to survive, it must comply with the rule of law, not the blood thirst of the moment.

[klaucke]

I think you guys need to all reassess, in that you are all foreigners in this land. We really have no right to be here, almost all this land was stolen from the indigeneous American Indians.

The constitution is to protect all people in this land. At one time, Black slaves were not considered citizens, nor were American Indians, and they were denied the rights of the Constitution, but these rulings have long since been overturned. I'm not calling suspected terrorists citizens, but as persons who may have found there way into this country, they have certain unalienable rights. After all, they are innocent until proven guilty, no matter how strongly some of the people on this BBS feel. To think these people don't have certain rights (i.e. right to a trial by jury, etc) is downright unconstitutional and unpatriotic, not to mention inhumane.

John Hancock, Sam Adams, Paul Revere, John Adams, Thomas Paine, et al. were probably viewed as "terrorists" in their time by British (who were the ruling government) conterparts... today they are national heroes.

[legion]

Originally posted by Rodeo
You know why? For us. For America. For the citizens of America to know that we continue to be a beacon of democracy and justice.

It's hard to continue to be a beacon when you've got a dozen guys pi$$ing on the fire and the most we are willing to do is to ask them to stop, nicely.

[cowtown]

Originally posted by fintstone
The answer to your question is obvious to a person with more than half a brain. If you capture a terrorist with a laptop full of phone numbers, if any belong to known or suspected terrorists...a warrant is easy under FISA. If you find a new number of a person not already known as a terrorist...under FISA, you would probably not have enough evidence to get the warrant and monitor. The whole intent is to find unknown terrorists (sleepers)...not ones we already have significant evidence against.

This is unknowable, but it is my belief that the FISA judges would have given W just about anything he needed in the way of warrants during the post-Sept 11 period. They don't want to be blamed for the next attack any more than the next guy.

A question for you guys who deflect the issue on this - you're saying that it's important to spy without going through the FISA mechanism for basically two reasons:

1) Speed (even though there's a retroactive period for FISA warrants)
2) The need for more latitude (ie FISA won't give you a warrant when you want to spy on someone).

I believe that everyone has the country's security in mind when they argue the above. So take yourself back to the legal discussions that W and his team MUST have had when they were considering doing this. Did they not consider what might happen if their non-FISA spying was discovered? That every potential terrorist would now have another legal means to defeat any conviction, and another way to tie up their case, delaying any testimony/bargaining?

This is all so crazy. WHY didn't W go through the existing procedure? No one has answered that.