Government spying

[RoninLB]

I believe Mexico has more oil than the whole mid east. If homes ever became cold in the US due to big bs Mexico's oil just became a Wall Street darling whether mexicans liked it or not.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by t951
cool_chick,

Its not wise to argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

They aren't getting it.

They think whatever bush does is ok, because he is a republican president.

Breaking the law is ok with them....

What low scruples they have....such .low standards they adhere to...

Nuts!

[on-ramp]

the government had all the tools available to them before, to stop 9/11....before the Patriot Act and the illegal Spying.
If they were incompetent then, what makes you think they are more competant now? it'a all a ploy to make it "appear" they are doing their job so they don't lose power, in the meantime taking away more of our rights.

i'm neither a liberal or conservative, not politically active or even vote. just an independent observer...i agree with t951 and cool-chick , they seem to be the more intelligent here posting with more than 1/2 a brain.

As far as Mulho and Flinstone, i group them in the same category as the people who flew those planes into the buildings. brainwashed by pride and arrogance...they believe a government because they like their president. They believe it is ok to invade a country that never attacked us, had no WMD, and posed no real immminent threat to our nation....they believe it because their president/congress told them it was the right thing to do. These actions have killed more than 2,000 troops, injured thousands more, killed thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and childred with bombs, etc. Cost the American taxpayer $500+ Billion ...and they support it. If you don't think there's something seriously wrong here, then you're smoking the pipe.

as t951 said earlier, "3.5 Billion people can't be wrong"

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by on-ramp
As far as Mulho and Flinstone, i group them in the same category as the people who flew those planes into the buildings. brainwashed by pride and arrogance...

Bingo

We need to defend against these zealots with the same intensity we fight the terrorists. I could not be more serious about that. America's freedom is at stake.

You may wake up one day and fint will not some guy on an internet board, he will be your jailer. And Mul will be your judge, jury and executioner

Protect your liberties. It's what sets us apart from them.

[Seahawk]

From the this link, a more reasoned approach: You guys may not like it, but there it is. And before you attack me, please do some reading...from both sides of the aisle.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/


Yesterday we failed to get around to the excellent New York Times op-ed column by David Rivkin and Lee Casey of the law applicable to the NSA terrorist eavesdropping program: "Unwarranted complaints." Here is the point made as concisely as possible, consistent with John's longer analysis here last week:

The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions - areas where the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements are applicable - but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad.

Unlike Times reporter Eric Lichtblau, Rivkin and Casey know what they are talking about. Their column belies the gist of the Times's own coverage, and I appreciate the Times's publication of the column. However, it's too late to undo the wrongdoing the Times has indulged or the damage it has wrought.

For more on a related legal point, see today's Wall Street Journal column by Robert Turner: "FISA vs. the Constitution." (Courtesy of RealClearPolitics.)

[lendaddy]

I was searching for that article SeaHawk, Thanks. I heard them on the radio and couldn't remember the source.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by RoninLB
mass-media should be regulated under martial law during war time.

Amendment I to the US Constitution; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (emphasis mine)

You see, we have this thing that created the federal government and is the envelope within which it shall remain; if it does not do so it breaks the law which created it.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Seahawk
From the this link, a more reasoned approach: You guys may not like it, but there it is. And before you attack me, please do some reading...from both sides of the isle.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/


Yesterday we failed to get around to the excellent New York Times op-ed column by David Rivkin and Lee Casey of the law applicable to the NSA terrorist eavesdropping program: "Unwarranted complaints." Here is the point made as concisely as possible, consistent with John's longer analysis here last week:

The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions - areas where the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements are applicable - but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad.

Where is the Constitutional authorization for the federal government to act unconstitutiuonally outside the US or US controlled territories? If there is no express authorization for an act, then the authority for that act does not exist. There are no implied powers in the Constitution.

Unlike Times reporter Eric Lichtblau, Rivkin and Casey know what they are talking about. Their column belies the gist of the Times's own coverage, and I appreciate the Times's publication of the column. However, it's too late to undo the wrongdoing the Times has indulged or the damage it has wrought.

For more on a related legal point, see today's Wall Street Journal column by Robert Turner: "FISA vs. the Constitution." (Courtesy of RealClearPolitics.)

The federal government is completely out of control; anything that might get it closer to acting lawful is acting responsibly; anything or anyone that aids or abets unconstitutional/unlawful conduct by the federal government is acting irresponsibly and is un-American.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by fastpat
Amendment I to the US Constitution; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (emphasis mine)

You see, we have this thing that created the federal government and is the envelope within which it shall remain; if it does not do so it breaks the law which created it.

I'm not advocating anything here, but you are ofcourse aware that the above is not absolute. The most obvious being the freedom of speech (shouting fire in a crowded room, etc..). It is interesting to see those on the left suddenly throw out exact wording declarations from the Constitution while holding that somewhere in the 14th Ammendment lies the Constitutional right to abortions, etc..

[Rodeo]

Here's the full op-ed piece. I disagree with some of its basic premises, but will reserve comment right now.

Unwarranted Complaints
By DAVID B. RIVKIN and LEE A. CASEY

Washington

SHORTLY after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush ordered surveillance of international telephone communications by suspected members of Al Qaeda overseas, even if such calls also involved individuals within the United States. This program was adopted by direct presidential order and was subject to review every 45 days. Judicial warrants for this surveillance were neither sought nor obtained, although key members of Congress were evidently informed. The program's existence has now become public, and howls of outrage have ensued. But in fact, the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself.

The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions - areas where the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements are applicable - but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad. The attempt, by Democrats and Republicans alike, to dismantle the president's core constitutional power in wartime is wrongheaded and should be vigorously resisted by the administration.

After all, even the administration's sternest critics do not deny the compelling need to collect intelligence about Al Qaeda's plans so we can thwart future attacks. So instead of challenging the program on policy grounds, most have focused on its legal propriety, specifically Mr. Bush's decision not to follow the framework established by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

In an effort to control counterintelligence activities in the United States during the cold war, the surveillance act established a special court, known as the FISA court, with authority to issue wiretapping warrants. Instead of having to show that it has "probable cause" to believe criminal activity is taking place (which is required to obtain a warrant in an ordinary investigation), the government can get a warrant from the FISA court when there is probable cause to believe the target of surveillance is a foreign power or its agent.

Although the administration could have sought such warrants, it chose not to for good reasons. The procedures under the surveillance act are streamlined, but nevertheless involve a number of bureaucratic steps. Furthermore, the FISA court is not a rubber stamp and may well decline to issue warrants even when wartime necessity compels surveillance. More to the point, the surveillance act was designed for the intricate "spy versus spy" world of the cold war, where move and countermove could be counted in days and hours, rather than minutes and seconds. It was not drafted to deal with the collection of intelligence involving the enemy's military operations in wartime, when information must be put to immediate use.

Indeed, it is highly doubtful whether individuals involved in a conflict have any "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their communications, which is the touchstone of protection under both the Fourth Amendment and the surveillance act itself - anymore than a tank commander has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his communications with his commanders on the battlefield. The same goes for noncombatants swept up in the hostilities.

Even if Congress had intended to restrict the president's ability to obtain intelligence in such circumstances, it could not have constitutionally done so. The Constitution designates the president as commander in chief, and Congress can no more direct his exercise of that authority than he can direct Congress in the execution of its constitutional duties. As the FISA court itself noted in 2002, the president has "inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."

In this instance, in addition to relying on his own inherent constitutional authority, the president can also draw upon the specific Congressional authorization "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks "in order to prevent any future attacks of international terrorism against the United States." These words are sufficiently broad to encompass the gathering of intelligence about the enemy, its movements, its abilities and its plans, a core part of the use of force against Al Qaeda and its allies. The authorization does not say that the president can order the use of artillery, or air strikes, yet no one is arguing that therefore Mr. Bush is barred from doing so.

The fact that the statutory language does not specifically mention intelligence collection, or that this matter was not raised by the White House in negotiations with Congress, or even that the administration had sought even broader language, all points recently raised by former Senator Tom Daschle, is irrelevant.

Overall, this surveillance program is fully within the president's legal authority, is limited in scope (involving communications to or from overseas related to the war against Al Qaeda), and is subject to stringent presidential review. The contretemps its revelation has caused reveals much more about the chattering classes' fundamental antipathy to strong government in general, and strong executive power in particular, than it does about presidential overreaching.

The Constitution's framers did not vest absolute power in any branch of the federal government, including the courts, but they did create a strong executive and equipped the office with sufficient authority to act energetically to defend the national interest in wartime. That is what President Bush has done, and nothing more.

David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey are lawyers who served in the Justice Department in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Bingo

We need to defend against these zealots with the same intensity we fight the terrorists. I could not be more serious about that. America's freedom is at stake.

You may wake up one day and fint will not some guy on an internet board, he will be your jailer. And Mul will be your judge, jury and executioner

Protect your liberties. It's what sets us apart from them.

Indeed, our fathers and their fathers before them allowed the federal government to grant itself powers not expressly authorized in the Constitution.

We must curtail these activities of the federal government now, while there is the slim chance that we can.

We need a massive roll back of federal funding, that is the life blood of government. We need a military about one tenth the size it is today, not to switch the money spent on dangerous (to our freedom and that of others) weapons to other socialist boondoggles (the current military is one huge socialist black hole), but to simply leave in the hands of the citizenry who know how to use or not use the money. We need to abolish the Departments of Education, HUD, Agriculture, and all the rest of the pork laden federal monster.

Frankly, I don't hold out much hope of eliminating 140 years of merchantilist, fascist government without having to have portions of the country secede from the Union, ridding themselves of federal thugs.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by fastpat
Indeed, our fathers and their fathers before them allowed the federal government to grant itself powers not expressly authorized in the Constitution.

We must curtail these activities of the federal government now, while there is the slim chance that we can.

We need a massive roll back of federal funding, that is the life blood of government. We need a military about one tenth the size it is today, not to switch the money spent on dangerous (to our freedom and that of others) weapons to other socialist boondoggles (the current military is one huge socialist black hole), but to simply leave in the hands of the citizenry who know how to use or not use the money. We need to abolish the Departments of Education, HUD, Agriculture, and all the rest of the pork laden federal monster.

Frankly, I don't hold out much hope of eliminating 140 years of merchantilist, fascist government without having to have portions of the country secede from the Union, ridding themselves of federal thugs.

Wow I actually agree with this for the most part. But when it comes to our nations defense I think we were meant to have a very strong executive hand.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I'm not advocating anything here, but you are ofcourse aware that the above is not absolute.

Actually, yes it is an absolute, where do you see the wording that grants the federal government the power to decide limits on itself?

The most obvious being the freedom of speech (shouting fire in a crowded room, etc..).

That well worn reference to the "fire in a crowded theater" was created by the US Supreme Court to justify allowing the federal government arrest and conviction of persons attempting to thwart the draft during World War One; it was garbage then and it's garbage now. Of course, I may shout "fire" in a crowded theater, I have my power of speach intact the whole time I'm in there, and if there is a fire everyone ought to know about it. However, if there's no fire; then I'll have to bear responsibility for any damage or loss I create from my irresponsible act. That isn't a restriction on speach, requiring one to repay for a loss caused is common law, centuries old.

Rights are personal property; no one may legitimately remove them. I have the right to self defense, for example, that means that I must have access to any weapon I deem necessary to exercise that right. Freedom of the press means that I must have the right to purchase any device necessary to practice that right. You can't say the citizenry has the right to freedom of the press, then license the purchase and ownership of a printing press. Licenses for TV and radio stations are absolutely unConstitutional and always have been; their purpose is to enable government to exercise control over those media. The federal and state governments are nearly drooling over choosing a method to regulate the web and internet; so far unsuccessfully, but the threat is still present, from both the so-called right and so-called left in America.

It is interesting to see those on the left suddenly throw out exact wording declarations from the Constitution while holding that somewhere in the 14th Ammendment lies the Constitutional right to abortions, etc..

Ahh, I see you seek to obfuscate the subject at hand by introducing another subject to cloud the discussion. Start another thread, we can discuss that subject there, this thread is about the criminal acts of the current president, of which there are many.

[Rodeo]

I need to address this concept that we are in a "war" with al Queda. That's a nice catch phrase, and it serves to emphasize that this is a desperate struggle, but there are few if any similarities to the way "war" has been understood throughout the history of mankind, and as that term is used in our Constitution.

There is no conventional battlefield, there are no uniformed soldiers, there is no central command structure. Declaring "war" on Islamic terrorism (the struggle is not confined to al Queda) is similar to declaring "war" on Puerto Rican separatists, or South American drug lords, or Mexican smugglers. It may highlight our seriousness, but it means nothing in terms of conventional warfare.

So my first point is that while we may be in an epic struggle with radical Islam, equating telephone calls between Pakistani Americans and their relatives overseas with communications between tank commanders on a battlefield is just not accurate. We know the guy in the tank is the enemy. We know he is not an American citizen. And we know that his communications have the overarching goal of defeating America.

When we tap that American's phone call overseas, we know none of those things.

When we intercept that tank commander's radio communications, that action does not implicate the Constitution in any fashion. When we tap that American's phone line without a warrant, no matter what your point of view on this, you have to admit that it has Constitutional implications.

So that’s the first point. Just saying we are at "war" means nothing in this context. If it did, the president could declare "war" on any number of domestic threats, abolishing our freedom in the process.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Wow I actually agree with this for the most part. But when it comes to our nations defense I think we were meant to have a very strong executive hand.

We (Americans) tried to establish a government whose sole authority is to carry the mail and defend the country; but that restriction on government was fought by every president from Washington (illegal taxation and military action in the Whiskey Rebellion) right down to the neo-conservative we have today. Hasn't worked, the federal government sets its own limits on its power, a prescription for what we have today.

I spent over 25 years in the military; active duty and reserves, enlisted and officer beginning in 1967 and ending in 2003; and will tell you plainly that we don't need what we have today. There is no threat of invasion, other than the ongoing invasion from our southern border that the federal government is encouraging, from any country on earth. The notion that Al Qaeda is an invasion threat is too ludicrous to discuss; the current administration is presiding over the Albanian muslim illegal immigrant invasion and occupation of the Christian Serb province of Kosovo as I write, so isn't concerned with that european invasion.

So why is the US military larger, by money spent, than the next 27 countries added together? I dare say you can't justify that.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo


So that’s the first point. Just saying we are at "war" means nothing in this context. If it did, the president could declare "war" on any number of domestic threats, abolishing our freedom in the process.

Wrong, we are not conducting these taps in the pursuit of criminal charges as we would in a "War on Drugs", etc. This is for the direct life and death defense of our citizens via a foreign force. The comparison is not legitimate.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Wrong, we are not conducting these taps in the pursuit of criminal charges as we would in a "War on Drugs", etc. This is for the direct life and death defense of our citizens via a foreign force. The comparison is not legitimate.

So as long as there are no prosecutions, you are fine with tapping American's phones in order to win the War on Drugs?

I hope not

[Rodeo]

That's the second point. The 4th Amendment does not prohibit unreasonable searches for the purpose of prosecution. It prohibits unreasonable searches. Period.

This whole argument that "as long as we don't prosecute, we can do whatever we want" is false and dangerous.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches ... shall not be violated."

Where's the disclaimer that this applies only if we are charging you? It does not exist.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rodeo
I need to address this concept that we are in a "war" with al Queda. That's a nice catch phrase, and it serves to emphasize that this is a desperate struggle, but there are few if any similarities to the way "war" has been understood throughout the history of mankind, and as that term is used in our Constitution.

Exactly true. We, Americans, aren't at war with anyone. Those who perpetrated the flash in the pan acts of September 11, 2001 died during the commission of the act, an act that could have and should have been prevented by those we pay handsomely to do so.

There is no conventional battlefield, there are no uniformed soldiers, there is no central command structure. Declaring "war" on Islamic terrorism (the struggle is not confined to al Queda) is similar to declaring "war" on Puerto Rican separatists, or South American drug lords, or Mexican smugglers. It may highlight our seriousness, but it means nothing in terms of conventional warfare.

Correct again. These so-called radical islamists, fueled by money and education in the west (refuting the notion that if they come here and learn how nice we are, they'll be our friends), were about 2000 strong in 2001, maybe less. Today, as a result of the neo-con activities in the middle east, they number maybe twice that, with no reduction in sight.

So my first point is that while we may be in an epic struggle with radical Islam, equating telephone calls between Pakistani Americans and their relatives overseas with communications between tank commanders on a battlefield is just not accurate. We know the guy in the tank is the enemy. We know he is not an American citizen. And we know that his communications have the overarching goal of defeating America.

When we tap that American's phone call overseas, we know none of those things.

When we intercept that tank commander's radio communications, that action does not implicate the Constitution in any fashion. When we tap that American's phone line without a warrant, no matter what your point of view on this, you have to admit that it has Constitutional implications.

So that�s the first point. Just saying we are at "war" means nothing in this context. If it did, the president could declare "war" on any number of domestic threats, abolishing our freedom in the process.

Yes, it calls up the classic quote "those who would sacrifice freedom for security derserve neither freedom nor security". These neo-con thugs threaten my rights, rights which I defend vigorously.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
So as long as there are no prosecutions, you are fine with tapping American's phones in order to win the War on Drugs?

I hope not

I said no such thing. The difference between the two is obvious to me, not to you?