View Full Version : NSA Wiretaps
Ahhhh a new and potentially impeachable blunder by Bush. Bush admits to and defends issuing an Executive Order authorizing the NSA to engage in secret domestic spying by monitoring phone and e-mail communications of US citizens. This action was taken despite the previous abuses of domestic spying by the executive branch and with full knowledge of the resulting legislation embodies in the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) that requires a court order for this very act. Incidently, the Supreme Court has ruled that the executive branch doesn't have the power to perform unchecked wiretaps and that was the nexus for FISA. Under FISA, these wire taps are available to the federal government through a special federal court that with few exceptions grants their request. One caevat, is that there must be reasonable cause, but under Bush's order suspicion is the only criteria. Does that sound like due process as it has evolved from the bedrock of the US Constitution? One possibility is that frivolous sneak and peek wiretaps are not presented to the court and this is what they were after in the first place. At any rate the wiretaps have always been available. What I find most reprehensible is the administration officials wrapping themselves in the "bloody flag of 9-11", calling anyone who is critical of what appears to be an illegal act unpatriotic and fanning the flame of public insecurity with statements like those who question them are helping terrorist. The spin I understand, but acting indignant when caught with their hand in the cookie jar, now that is too much.
Fortuitously, the revelation occurred before the Patriot Act could be pushed through without fixing the civil liberty problems imbedded in the document. If the White House and congressional leadership so concerned about renewing the provisions of the Patriot Act, then renew the uncontested provision and debate the merits of the rest, or extend it for 3 months to allow public discourse on the more egregious provision
I can recall the days of Watergate and the awe of the revelation of Nixon's domestic spying, along with the previous administrations abuses. Nixon proved that the executive branch did not possess the authority for unchecked domestic spying, and now, there is a federal law requiring a court order for a very good reason. 9-11 did nothing to change that reason.
DaSharkie
12-20-2005, 18:55
Never trust a politician.
Mark Twain - "Politicians should serve two terms. One in prison, one in jail."
I actually have no problem with it. There's a reason why we haven't had any terrorist action if 4 years, in my opinion. If you don't have anything to hide then you shouldn't care who is listening. That's my humble opinion.
Brad, I don't have anything to hide, but I'm not naive enough to equal no 9-11 type incident with this presidential act. If you recall, one of the most common logical fallacies is "because of this then that" either happened or didn't happen. That's a very slippery slope. Merely acquiescing to this form of misconduct sets the stage for future tyranny. So, where should one draw the line in accepting lawlessness on the part of government? Only when it directly impacts you? Didn't we try that with McCarthyism and learn that it is a bad practice. How about the Holocaust? Just where is the line if our current laws aren't that point of demarcation?
Remember Barry Goldwater’s speech that cost him the presidency " Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..." In '64 the US wasn't buying that crap and I hope for all our sake we're not buy now either
I'd also like to point out one more thing, terrorism has risen dramatically in the last 4 years and sets a new record every year. We're not safer now than before. Granted, in all probability the war in Iraq has us fighting them over there instead of here, but the flip side is the zealots have a real training ground with real combat and an ever increasingly polarized Muslin population.
We can consent to secret wiretaps, and follow Lincoln in the suspension of habeas corpus and then set up check points and stop everyone, question them, and arrest those whom the security details doesn't believe, or thinks they're suspicious. Again, if the government is above the law then where do you draw the line? It isn't hard to imagine where our forefathers would stand on this issue with slogans like "give me liberty or give me death".
mcaldwell
12-21-2005, 04:21
I actually have no problem with it. There's a reason why we haven't had any terrorist action if 4 years, in my opinion. If you don't have anything to hide then you shouldn't care who is listening. That's my humble opinion.
I really don't think the wire taps have much, if anything, to do with the lack of activity within the US post 911.
As Rory has mentioned, worldwide terrorist activity has increased sharply after 911, and the amount of terrorist resources focused on the Iraq conflict alone is staggering. It is not so much that they have been unable to complete an attack within the US, but rather they are focusing their efforts on the easier US and allied targets abroad. This is a common strategy with terrorist groups, and a "victory" in Iraq (such as causing an early Vietnam-style withdrawal) would be worth more to Al Qaeda than 10 WTC attacks.
Don't forget that there were 10 years before WTC attempt #1, and the final successful attack with no major activity in between. Terrorists rarely attack with frequency in a developed country. Even without the increases in security that the US has funded, their system is more than adequate when focused and utilized properly. Remember that the FBI/CIA/President knew about the 911 plans in general well before they were executed so tragically, they were simply lax in their response.
I don't have a say on this topic, but as the outside observer, the first thing into my mind is this: Clinton was almost impeached for getting a blowjob and lying about it. 911 aside, what is the message to the US (and the world) if Bush is not held to task for breaking his own nation's law in such an obvious way?
And to be clear, I think the US would be mistaken to withdraw from Iraq early, as that would just strengthen it's enemies, and refocus their efforts back on US soil. The administration's challenge now however, is to complete the mission without sacrificing the values your entire nation was built on. To dismantle your legal and political system only proves to your enemies that it was flawed to begin with.
Okay, they may not have anything to do with not having any terrorist threats in the US the last four years...but I still don't mind if people listen to my phone calls...I don't care...It's all about keeping our country safe. I am not doing anything illegal, I don't care if they hear my saying sweet nothings into my sweeties ear, I don't care if they hear how drunk I got last night and where I vomited, I don't care if they know that my dad is a raging alcholic with emotional problems...I don't care...do what you have to do to help keep me, my family and my friends safe...I DON'T CARE!!! :respect:
WELLAGEDEMT
12-22-2005, 10:18
It's only wrong (wire taps) when GWB does it. So many of the misdeeds by GW Bush, that are being alledged have been done by many other presidents. It's a national shame that everything has to be politicized to the point of disaster. Bush was elected to lead, get off his *** and let him do it!!!!!!!!!:soapbox: :flame:
In Texas if you're in a position to exercise power and control over someone and abridge their civil liberties its called official oppression and is a 1st degree felony. Clinton was almost impeached over lying about a blow job, yet you give a pass on a potential felony because it’s GWB or out of fear? I suppose I served my country so you could yield your rights away despite how wrong I view your attitudes. Our democracy was built upon the debate of competing views and opinions. I believe there are serious issues of abuse of power, and Wellaged, your old enough to recall when our executive branch proved they did not deserve unrestricted power. This did not surface on others watch, nor have the other presidents since Nixon engage in secret spying on US citizens ( that we know of) so this properly belongs at Bush's doorstep and on his *** as you so apply put it. NSA already had the power to make these intercepts under emergency provision in FISA. The program still remains classified and the extent and scope still shrouded in secrecy. The scope might surprise even you. The capabilities of NSA is not a secret and our enemies are well versed in security procedures, but like everyone else, they do mess up occasionally and these are the one who might get snared in this net. Again the authorization for emergency intercepts has always been there and Congress would have given Bush a pretty freehand had he gone to them with his concerns, informed them of the scope of the problem, and requested remedies with the proper oversight. Even George Wills, one of the staunch Republican commentators doesn't support this act. Now that is more than a minor glitch, it's astounding at the least. So, I don't care if you don't care. I hope for and support congressional investigations along with a concurrent independent prosecutor investigation. Those responsible for illegal conduct should be prosecuted even if it means impeaching GWB. I assume you’re for selective enforcement of the law too. Prosecute those you don't agree with and ignore lawlessness on the part of those with whom you agree. I can see the rule of law and the progress since the Magna Carta bashed on the rocks of capitulation. What a shame!
MadMedic
12-22-2005, 15:03
sounds like Hoover looking for Communists back in the 60's
WELLAGEDEMT
12-22-2005, 15:11
I'm not going to get into a Pi**ing contest with you. I have served and I have lived thru a heck of a lot more than you have. You have your opinions and I have mine. Don't even try to FORCE your side on me. You can make your voice heard a lot better at the elections than you can trying to blast mine. I just offered another side and if you don't like it, BITE ME!!!!!!!
RyanEMVFD
12-22-2005, 15:41
Nineteen Eighty-Four
Boys...enough...let's keep this civil....we have spoken our peace and none of us are going to budge...let's just see what everyone else has to say about it.
BITE ME! LMAO...how articulate. Don't think I'll waste my time trying to draw you out into a debate of issues. Brad, I'll give way, and agree; lets hear form the others out there.
DaSharkie
12-22-2005, 18:40
Nothing that will take away my constitutionally guaranteed rights and supplant additional power to the government shall have my support. I don't give a damn which party is doing it, has done it, or will do it.
The Constitution of the United States is not a lengthy, nor oppressive document. It is very easy to accomplish what they wish to do without violating someone's Constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms.
EMSsquirrel
12-22-2005, 23:19
I've suspected things like this were going on anyway. That's why, if I ever mention any "hot words" in emails and the like, I always write a friendly little "Hi NSA fellas!" in parenthesis immediately after. I don't have anything to hide. But I do think the legal justifications given for the tappings have been on shaky ground. I don't know that they know exactly how they're trying to explain this to the public. I'd be interested to hear actual chapter and verse cited when they say, "the Constitution says..." or "such-and-such-a-law says..."
- Greg
BFD Medic424
12-23-2005, 00:16
This isn't that complicated.
To the government: You screwed up-next time go through the right channels, do everything legally, before tapping lines. Hey, we all have to play by the rules.
To everyone complaining about it: Shut up, you made your point now let the government do its job because hey, do you really want to be the person who has the job of keeping an entire nation safe?
Now lets all get over it and have a cold one.:beer:
DaSharkie
12-23-2005, 08:42
Sorry, I will never stop arguing or complaining against a government that trounces individual rights and liberties.
Constitutionally speaking, the individual is more powerful than the government. Of course, when individuals do not challenge the government - at all levels - when this occurs, we become subject to the government and not the controllers of it.
As it was said - 1984. Written oddly enough by a socialist. Still baffles my mind.:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
WELLAGEDEMT
12-23-2005, 11:22
OK, Bite Me, was out of line! I must have been going thru the change or something. I just don't think too many people on the left have memories. It seems to me that every President has had something that provided fodder for the opposing sides. I'll be quiet, now.
An interesting development occurred in this saga yesterday. The justice depT released a statement to the effect that FISA is the only avenue for domestic wiretaps but the war powers granted Bush created an exception. Senator Tom Daschle released a statement on that very topic too. he stated that Congress explicitly refused a last minute Bush request to include "with in the US" in the language authorization use of all appropriate force to pursue the 9-11 perps. There goes the exception since intend become the overriding issue when reverting to such congressional authorizations.
I'm not going to give up, nor quit, or return to the status quo. The road to tyranny begins when one fails to protest and follow through on such actions
I'm not going to give up, nor quit, or return to the status quo. The road to tyranny begins when one fails to protest and follow through on such actions
Give em hell!! Let me know how it turns out!! :bang: :lol: :jig:
mcaldwell
12-23-2005, 19:59
Give em hell!! Let me know how it turns out!! :bang: :lol: :jig:
ROFLMFAO!!!!!! :rotflmao: :respect:
Phew. I was SO worried about what Tom Daschle thought. It's literally kept me up at night.
I love how it's ok for Carter and Clinton but for Bush it's an impeachable offense all of a sudden.
No matter what happens or what you think about the subject, the leaker needs to get an extended vacation in Leavenworth. Disclosure of classified information- in this case a national security program- is treason, doesn't matter if the program isn't popular- it's SECRET.
If we let this transgression pass because we don't like what was revealed, where does it end?
...I love how it's ok for Carter and Clinton but for Bush it's an impeachable offense all of a sudden....
Scratching my head, so what exactly did Carter and Clinton do in this regard? If you have information that they to authorized secret domestic wiretaps then give it up. I kinda doubt it. Clinton was investigated out the wassu and if he'd done anything like this I'm sure a special prosecutor would have served him up on a platter. As far as Carter, He was too worried about what others thought than to do anything remotely on the out skirts of legal/unethical. I can recall being on alert in the Persian Gulf wanting for authorization from Carter to strike Iran. We stood down. Wasn't till Reagan came along that anything remotely threatening pushed Iran to act. An of course, Reagan's first term introduced us to Paul Volker and reaganomics. Reagan's second term was mared by Iran/Contra. Good ole Ollie North fell on his spear to save the Presidency.
http://macsmind.blogspot.com/2005/12/wrong-kos-clinton-did-order.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/22/111526.shtml
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051222-085051-6226r.htm
ummm, tantilizing tidbits, but quite short of the public acknowledgement/confession of Bush. I'm aware of the allegations of the IRS audits and find the timing very suspecious, however if Independent Counsel David Barrett had something, I'm sure charges would have been filed. Your talkng about the most thoroughly investigated president in US hx, even more so than Nixon in my opinion and I watched both Presidents as events unfolded.
Talking about Clinton and Carter approving "...electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order..." it isn't domestic surveillance without a court order. Two very different things. Good attempt to muddy the water, but the two are not the same. If abused occurred, then they, the perp, should be pursued and prosecuted without regard to position
"Most investigated President in US history," sure. Just not the right stuff.
From the macsmind blog, he is quoting here:
"The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place.
"Warrantless Searches of Public Housing
In the spring of 1994 the Chicago Public Housing Authority responded to gang violence by conducting warrantless "sweeps" of entire apartment buildings. Closets, desks, dressers, kitchen cabinets, and personal effects were examined regardless of whether the police had probable cause to suspect particular residents of any wrongdoing. Some apartments were searched when the residents were not home. Although such searches were supported by the Clinton administration, Federal District Judge Wayne Anderson declared the Chicago sweeps unconstitutional. [55] Judge Anderson found the government's claim of "exigent circumstances" to be exaggerated since all of the sweeps occurred days after the gang-related shootings. He also noted that even in emergency situations, housing officials needed probable cause in order to search specific apartments. Unlike many governmental officials who fear demagogic criticism for being "soft on crime," Judge Anderson stood up for the Fourth Amendment rights of the tenants, noting that he had "sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution" and that he would not "use the power of [his] office to override it, amend it or subvert it." [56]
The White House response was swift. President Clinton publicly ordered Attorney General Reno and HUD secretary Henry Cisneros to find a way to circumvent Judge Anderson's ruling. One month later the president announced a "constitutionally effective way" of searching public housing units. The Clinton administration would now ask tenants to sign lease provisions that would give government agents the power to search their homes without warrants.
Can't make it much clearer than that. But you had read the entire article and seen that already, right?
In any event, it's obvious that you know exactly what the truth is by virtue of... something (omnipotence perhaps)?, so I shall not further burden you with inconvenient ideas.
paramedicmike
12-27-2005, 23:53
Actually, Clinton was impeached. He was found not guilty (as opposed to innocent...not just semantics there).
Consider these, too. Nothing overtly damning. But enough to make you go "hmmmm..."
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051226-122526-7310r
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html?source=mypi
So, it seems that Bush tried to be legal but then decided that he didn't like it when it didn't work in his favor?
What gets me more is that the NY Times knew about this over a year ago. Which means that, at the request of the White House, they sat on a story that could have potentially influenced the election. No more comments on the evil liberal media, please.
It's a dangerous line to tread. I understand the idea that if you have nothing to hide then it doesn't matter if they listen or not. But if we learned nothing else from the 50's and McCarthy-ism is that it doesn't matter if you have anything to hide or not. All it takes is for someone to say "He's a commie" (or terrorist) and you're suddenly worthy of suspicion. It doesn't matter that you're neither a commie or a terrorist. It becomes an issue of guilty until proven innoncent. 14th Amendment be damned!
(Don't believe it? Talk to someone who's name is on the TSA's "No Fly" list and their efforts to get their name off. They've done nothing wrong but the gov't won't remove their names. So much for innocent until proven guilty.)
Noone wants terrorism here in the States or anywhere else for that matter. We all, regardless of political beliefs, want the same end...that of a peaceful and violence free existence.
But if you start compromising the rights of citizens of your own country, in blatant disregard of existing law, and for whatever reason, then you not only endanger the rights of all citizens, but the very foundation on which this Republic was founded.
-be safe.
We all, regardless of political beliefs, want the same end...that of a peaceful and violence free existence.
Right you are. I just can't help but notice that 9/11/01 was the last terrorist attack on US soil. (In the meantime, we had the most wanted man in the world telling the American people not to re-elect our President. Wonder why that was.)
Plots: many. Attacks: zero.
I like the math.
CB-EMT,
I like you're logic, "Plots: many. Attacks: zero.", but to be fair lets rephase
attacks 1, plots many , subsequent attacks zero
Using that same logic, we can say Bush and Clinton were equally effective in preventing further attacks on US soil during their watch. Heck we could even go out on a limb with this logic and say Clinton was even more effective since he didn't take US to war.
I don't but into this simplic view despite the viseral appeal of a simple answer. I was amused to see the swift Justice Department investigation of this leak as opposed to the resistance to initiating Plume leak investigation
WELLAGEDEMT
01-03-2006, 00:06
rory_el, You still are trying to push a one sided cart. You will get argument because not everyone is of the same belief system as you. When I said "bite me" I was as much as telling you that I have a differing opinion and you can argue the onesided argument as much as you wish and bore the hell out of everyone, but you will not change their minds or beliefs by spouting lefthanded retoric.:bang:
Using that same logic, we can say Bush and Clinton were equally effective in preventing further attacks on US soil during their watch.
Do you consider American embassies US soil? I seem to recall a couple of them getting blown to pieces back in 1998. (Oh, maybe we don't count those- Democrat in office and all.)
Do you consider the bombing of a US warship an attack on US soil? (Oops- Still a Democrat in office.)
Heck we could even go out on a limb with this logic and say Clinton was even more effective since he didn't take US to war.
I seem to recall a war and occupation in the Balkans that was supposed to be over in a year.
I also recall a 3-day bombing campaign in Iraq in 1998, and a hundred-million dollars worth of cruise missiles fired into Sudan and Afghanistan that accomplished.... umm...
Things have been busy around here lately, but I did find some time to see what I'd stirred up. LOL
Wellaged, I stand by my earlier statement about you "bite me" comment!
CB-EMT, I don't know the DNC position, but I'm sure you can enlighten us. I'm glad you found some humor in my jab at you're rather simplictic statement. Tonight, I'm not gonna push the issue, rather I'm gonna enjoy spending the evening (after my relief arrives) with my son who arrived this afternoon for a two week R&R (we called it I&I when I was in uniform) from Iraq .
Fellas, let's play nice...no need for personal jabs....I will close out this thread permanently if we can't act like mature adults....
Brad
Edited my less civil statements.
The rest stands.
WELLAGEDEMT
01-08-2006, 14:56
OK, i'll try to be civil, but it gets difficult when someone puts you down by trying to make you feel inferior intellectually because you don't hold the same beliefs politically. I have yet to see anything to change my statement, "BITE ME". It's the shortened version of a long drawn out an excuse not to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person!!
LOL
Wellaged, I had some thoughts on your statment that about how an unarmed person could make one feel intellectually inferior in a battle of wits but to be civil I'll keep those thoughts to myself.
Congresional hearing are coming, provided secrets remain secret. yeah right! So it will be interesting to see where this thing goes. Iran-contra started unraveling once hearings commenced. My Republican congressman has a interest in this too. Lets see if it has legs!
WELLAGEDEMT
01-14-2006, 10:04
Rory, I guess we are going to have to agree that we disagree and leave it at that. If I made comments that offended, I apologize. I have definite ideas about my beliefs and have for more years than you have been alive. I am not apologizing for that.
I kinda doubt you have more years than I've been alive, I'm well seasoned myself. You'd have to be in your late 90s to make that statement true & I've been fulltime in EMS for 21 years, 22 in May.
I never was offended by anything you said, gotta have thick skin to work in this field. I think you missed my humor
WELLAGEDEMT
01-14-2006, 12:06
If you are young enough to have a son serving in Iraq, you might qualify. I have grandchildren old enough to serve. I have stated that I was 63 and have only been an EMT for 5 years. I probably did miss the humor but I can pass that on to the "old fart syndrome". I really do like to "joust" back and forth but I don't like to argue. Serves very little purpose. Thanks for the reply.
Whoa, something is afoot. Attorney General stated the Bush administratin is now going to to follow the FISA law. They have directed the NSA to seek court approval of thier wire taps. Talk about an about face! Now that the do nothing congress has vacated and hearngs about to begin. I view this as an effort to render hearings mute, however for those of you old enough to recall Nixon's misuse of the IRS, FBI, and CIA you know these types of allegations nessiciate the bright light of public disclosure while protecting sensative methods and sources. Spiro Agnew wasn't above the law and neither is anyone in the Bush administration. If it is shown they knowingly and intentionally broke th FISA law then let the courts do thier job
SteelMaiden
01-19-2007, 17:26
coming in late on this.....just to add my two cents about politicians and honesty. I have a real tough time putting those two words in the same sentence. Maybe once upon a time, but as far as I'm concerned I doubt there has been an honest politician in my lifetime. I'm not quite as old as wellaged, but I'm still in the boomer generation.
WELLAGEDEMT
01-21-2007, 12:29
Lincoln never had these problems with his war strategy and his VP wasn't exactly lily white, but if I remember correctly wiretaps weren't even heard of yet. At least I wasn't aware of them. Those smoke signals were easy code to crack. The great thing about way back then is that we didn't have to worry about saying or doing something and having it all over the news in a heartbeat. It usually took a couple weeks to make the print media. But that's about all I can remember for now. :lol:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.