Senate Says no to Patriot Act - Ayonae.com Forums

Rover

12-17-2005, 12:24 PM

Yeah, we've really been living in a police state lately, haven't we?

I guess that entirely depends on who you are. The dangers of the patriot act don't lie so much in its endeavor to fight terrorism, but in it's ability to carry over into to investigations that were never intended for it to investigate.

You see, many forget that one of the core principles of American law is: Innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof must be on the accusor, never on the accused. The patriot act places less of a burden on the accusor and more of a burden on the accused. That in itself is vehemently un-American.

The lamest excuse that can be given in support of warrantless searches, wiretaps, etc.. is that: If you aren't doing anything wrong why does it matter? It matters because in this country we have a right to privacy or at least we should. I have no child porn or anything illegal on any of my computers, I don't deal drugs, I don't print counterfeit money, I don't donate to Osama and crew, as far as I know I'm not involved in any type of activities that could be deemed illegal. I DO NOT WANT ANYONE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM to have access to my computers, telephone conversations, my house, without properly obtaining a search warrant as outlined in the constitution. It's my RIGHT and your RIGHT also. I find it hard to swallow that people are so willing to have their liberties walked on by power gobbling politicians using the guise of "The War on Terror" as an excuse.

The failings that lead to 9/11 were not due to the government having to go through due process in order to observe the actions of the 19 hijackers. The failings were very simply things such as:

Guy giving flying lessons to arabic men notices that they have little if any interest in learning how to land those planes.

Report this to the FBI.

The FBI doesnt seem to notice that anything is out of skew about the report and ignores it.

The FBI is more concerned with doing things like investigating The Canal Street Brothel (http://www.thecanalstreetbrothel.com/) on and leading up to the days before 9/11.

Its things like that which failed us before 9/11 not the lack of warrantless wiretaps etc...

Sanchek

12-17-2005, 02:30 PM

The failings that lead to 9/11 were not due to the government having to go through due process in order to observe the actions of the 19 hijackers. The failings were very simply things such as:

Guy giving flying lessons to arabic men notices that they have little if any interest in learning how to land those planes.

Report this to the FBI.

The FBI doesnt seem to notice that anything is out of skew about the report and ignores it.

The FBI is more concerned with doing things like investigating The Canal Street Brothel on and leading up to the days before 9/11.

Its things like that which failed us before 9/11 not the lack of warrantless wiretaps etc...
So basically you're fine with racial profiling, just as long as it doesn't involve finding your stash of kiddie porn?

Rover

12-17-2005, 02:39 PM

So basically you're fine with racial profiling, just as long as it doesn't involve finding your stash of kiddie porn?

HA...you really like to put words in peoples mouths...and make some pretty broad assumptions.

If you're OK with the brainwashing that trades the illusion of activity over results...then so be it.

Starrla

12-17-2005, 03:19 PM

I get the impression that Bush wants to be America's first dictator in history. I sure hope we keep saying NO to him. :)

Lleauric

12-17-2005, 03:44 PM

This "war of Terrorism" will be gone and forgotten in a few years... but the things we do and the precedents we set will be with us forever.

The government doesnt "give back" powers it takes. The history of this country is one where the federal govt is in constant but gradual state of being more and more powerful.
Whenever the next thing challenges our country the things that are done today will be used then.

Imagine McCarthy in the 50s had access to the infrastructure the Bush Administration is laying down. You think he would have had a hard time proving that Communism isnt as big a threat to the US as Terrorism? What about the War on Drugs? What about anything?
If we lay down and accept things like unauthorized wiretaps for one reason, it will occur again, and again, and again for other reasons. Our rights as citizens have to be jealously protected and ANY infringement on our unalienable rights needs to be severly crushed.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Sanchek

12-17-2005, 04:20 PM

HA...you really like to put words in peoples mouths...and make some pretty broad assumptions.

If you're OK with the brainwashing that trades the illusion of activity over results...then so be it.
Seriously though. You say you have nothing to hide (while posting under a second board account), but it's fine with you if we persecute the people you think are a clear threat. Maybe you're clairvoyant, but I don't think many people saw arabs attending flight school as a danger before 9/11. In hindsight, I'm sure it's easy for you to point out how obvious it should've been, but would you honestly have seen it as a threat to national security before 9/11? I really doubt it.

The Indian guy at the Quizno's down the street from me usually gives me soup, but no spoon. Clearly, something's fishy there. We'd better fire up an investigation. Dark colored people acting suspicious!

The ACLU would love to make you believe that the Patriot Act was the end of the world, but it doesn't give the FBI significantly more power than it had before. Even their publicity piece intended to debunk "DoJ myths" about the PA implicitly admits that the FBI always had the majority of the power that they do now.

The ACLU is an organization that thrives on the illusion of impropriety. They're as bad as the media when it comes to sensationalism. If they weren't constantly stirring up news of trouble, exaggerated or not, they wouldn't be able to solicit all those donations to keep their pockets lined.

Lleauric

12-17-2005, 04:22 PM

Lets continue down this "If you have nothing to hide, why worry?" path.

The govt is going to contract to build a massive computer. A couple football fields big.. massive amounts of computer power.

Into this computer will be feed vast amounts of data. Every phonecall, every Email, every text message, every Credit Card purchase, Bank Transaction.
Every website visited. Every library book checked out. Every online transaction. Everything.
No human being will be allowed to view this information in order to protect the rights of citizens.

What this computer will do will be to build profiles and look for patterns.
For example: A profile is developed of a person who lives in a high crime area. His cell phone records indicate multiple calls at odd hours of the night. Additionally this person has made multiple purchases of goods beyond his income level. Furthermore, medical records indicate that he has a history of drug abuse and arrest records point to past criminal activity.
The computer then forwards this information to the local police department as a "Person of interest"

Take is a step further.
You apply for a job, maybe government, maybe not. You sign a waiver allowing a background check by the FBI. As part of the process the computer processes all your data from the last 10 years.
What have you read.
What movies have you watched
What websites have you visited
How many friends do you have. How many relationships.. with who?
A stress analysis on your voice in cell phone calls gives insight into your personality.
what are your politics?
All this information is processed and a complete dossier is produced ranking who would be most qualified for the position based on the qualities the organization is looking for.

Lets take it even a step further.
Lets build a database of 20, 30, 50 years. Keep track of people. Save the profiles of certain criminal elements or dangerous people.
Try to find order in the Chaos by matching up seemingly innoculous information that proven criminals have exhibited. Sleeping habits, social circle, viewing habits, eating habits, family background, educational level, intelligence....
Use this find out people who are more likely to commit crimes. Look at them a little harder. If a certain crime happens in an area that they are in, you have a preset list of suspects.
How much safer would the world be?

Oh what a brave new world we strive for.

Rover

12-17-2005, 04:27 PM

(while posting under a second board account),

You are both exceptionally paranoid and wrong. I'm not going to get into this with you...give it up man...your most definately incorrect.

I'm sure it's easy for you to point out how obvious it should've been

It was fairly obvious to the flight instructors, and fairly obvious to the FBI agents to whom it was reported. It was not obvious or perhaps it was just ignored by those in positions of approving what gets investigated and what doesn't.

The key here was not that they were Arabic, nor that they were taking flight lessons. But the fact that not one of them had any concern or desire to be instructed at landing a plane is a pretty big tip-off as to the possibility of something being not quite right. You see pilots and flight instructors (whom are also pilots) place alot of emphasis on the landing portion of the flight. It is most often the difference between a succesful or unsuccesful flight.

Taleren Bloodsong

12-17-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:
(while posting under a second board account),

You are both exceptionally paranoid and wrong. I'm not going to get into this with you...give it up man...your most definately incorrect.

While, no I don't agree with what he's posted on this subject, if anyone would have access to this information on this board, it would be him. I don't doubt the veracity of his claims to this.

Sanchek

12-17-2005, 05:03 PM

You are both exceptionally paranoid and wrong. I'm not going to get into this with you...give it up man...your most definately incorrect.
Look, if you flagrantly lie about this one more time, I'm just merging your accounts back under the old name. I have both electronic and human confirmation. I screen new accounts and knew as soon as you registered.

Playing dummy is pathetic. I've been extremely lenient with you.

It was fairly obvious to the flight instructors, and fairly obvious to the FBI agents to whom it was reported. It was not obvious or perhaps it was just ignored by those in positions of approving what gets investigated and what doesn't.

The key here was not that they were Arabic, nor that they were taking flight lessons. But the fact that not one of them had any concern or desire to be instructed at landing a plane is a pretty big tip-off as to the possibility of something being not quite right. You see pilots and flight instructors (whom are also pilots) place alot of emphasis on the landing portion of the flight. It is most often the difference between a succesful or unsuccesful flight.
This isn't as unusual as it might sound. When I was in the Civil Air Patrol (haha, yeah I know), I received extensive instruction on how to fly the planes we used, but very little on how to land. It was the same way for all of us. We were allowed to fly and earn hours toward a license, but not land due to insurance issues.

Even today, when my friend and I fly somewhere, I'll often fly on the way up while he takes a nap or works, and then he lands when we get there. I know how, but I never had any formal training and I honestly didn't care to.

Gosh, I must be a terrorist.

Moglor

12-17-2005, 05:25 PM

merge da accounts! let's see the man behind the mask!

Rover

12-17-2005, 05:31 PM

This isn't as unusual as it might sound. When I was in the Civil Air Patrol (haha, yeah I know), I received extensive instruction on how to fly the planes we used, but very little on how to land. It was the same way for all of us. We were allowed to fly and earn hours toward a license, but not land due to insurance issues.

Even today, when my friend and I fly somewhere, I'll often fly on the way up while he takes a nap or works, and then he lands when we get there. I know how, but I never had any formal training and I honestly didn't care to.

Gosh, I must be a terrorist.

The terrorists were in training to fly passenger jets. I would imagine that the instructors giving the lessons had a lesson plan that included landing as one of the things that were required to get a certificate of completion.

It was their lack of desire to learn how to land that was the tip-off, as they had given all of the impression that they REALLY wanted to fly commercial airliners as a job. One instructor had even stated in his reporting to the FBI that airliners would make one hell of a flying bomb.

Flying a small plane while the pilot gets rest is not something I would find unusual between friends, after all if you crash, no one would know that you were the one in control. They would just know that there were 2 dead guys in a pile of twisted wreckage and from flight records make an assumption that the guy with the pilots license was flying.

Sanchek

12-17-2005, 05:48 PM

I don't think it's unusual to begin training in that type of equipment that way. Of course you have to know how to land to pilot or co-pilot, but some planes carry extended crew who are only partially trained.

Contrary to what common sense would lead you to believe, those larger planes aren't very difficult to fly. In fact, there are usually a couple Delta pilots around the flight school that we fly out of, and I've seen those guys fail their check flights in the Cessnas more than once. Commercial airline pilots are more glorified equipment operators than pilots.

I don't want to get farther off topic with the piloting stuff. The point is just that the vector of attack and the events leading up to it seem so clear in retrospect, but beforehand it was just one of a multitude of potential issues that needed to be prioritized and investigated.

If the FBI had done anything it could've done to prevent those guys in the flight school from carrying out their plans before it was too late, the ACLU would've spun it as abuse of the terrorists' civil liberties and handed the FBI to the media on a silver platter. Yet, now we hold them in contempt for not having investigated it sooner, while at the same time advocating that they should be hamstrung even further.

You can't have it both ways.

Ibudin

12-17-2005, 05:54 PM

The Patriot Act just needs some revisions but the fact remains that the WTC bombers where not American Citizens and the government should be able to do what ever they want to non citizens in regards to public safety.

Thoss

12-17-2005, 06:19 PM

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the vote failed to end cloture and bring the bill to a vote? Of course, not voting has the same result as voting against the bill (for now), I just like a little less spin with my "news".

Maybe someone more knowledgable in parliamentary procedure can explain to me why the filibuster is a good thing? From a common sense point of view it seems to be a way to subvert the normal voting standard and pretty much give politicians yet another excuse not to get the job done on time.

The one thing I do find midly amusing in all of this is you have the president saying that we cannot be "without this critical law for even a single moment." Then you have McClellan and senior republican senators saying that the president will refuse to sign a temporary extension of the provisions. /boggle

Anyone who cares to learn what *provisions* of the act will now expire because of this, instead of just reading the wire report and saying "zomG teh Patriot Act is gone we are freeee!" can find them here : http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32186.pdf. You can find specific information about the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01389: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01389):

We're often led to believe that under these provisions big brother could get my library records, hack my computer, and install a camera in my bathroom to make sure I'm not reading any bomb-making books and subway system schematics on the shitter without any type of proof of suspicion or warrant...all because officer friendly thinks I'm a terrorist. I don't know about you but I sure see a lot of checks and balances in there. Maybe I'm missing something?

Kelraz Bladesinger

12-17-2005, 06:31 PM

The filibuster is a horrible political tool, I don't know why it is allowed to exist :(
Just last year in Maryland they were going to pass 2 bills allowing homosexual couples the right to visit their loved ones on their deathbeds in hospitals and stuff like that (normally a family only type of thing) and even heterosexual couples who were below the age of 18 and above the age of 65 (figuring they are too young to get married or perhaps too old to care about getting married). In Maryland they have a 90 day legislative session and any bills not voted on by the end of the 90th day, die right there until next year. The Republican minority used this to their advantage when they decided to just filibuster on the last day and because the bill was slated for the end of their legislative session it was never brought forth in a vote. Additionally those that filibustered also killed a few bills which would have benefited public education and some strengthening of local hospitals, but hey ... so long as those heathen gays don't get to even love people who cares about all that right.

Though the filibuster discussion is slightly off topic...

Kivorn

12-17-2005, 07:42 PM

The problem with the Patriot Act is (as we all know) that it's inherently arbitrary in its application to potentially completely innocent citizens.

While homeland security is rah-rah, it was a gateway to hatchet jobs all around.

I'm glad it did not pass since it could have triggered further hostilities with us liberal freaks overseas, and because it is not something I'd like over my head. I, like my friends, tend to joke freely about who we'd like to put a bullet to. I'd like to continue to do so without subjecting myself to Attention Slap or his big brother.

Osgiliath666

12-17-2005, 07:48 PM

I get the impression that Bush wants to be America's first dictator in history. I sure hope we keep saying NO to him. :)

That would work for me.. I'm on his side on 99% of the time anyways...

Thoss

12-17-2005, 08:49 PM

The problem with the Patriot Act is (as we all know) that it's inherently arbitrary in its application to potentially completely innocent citizens.

That's quite a blanket statement there, care to back it up with facts? Obviously most of us aren't law experts but I think we can do a lot more than make incredibly broad statements either pro or con.

Show me which of these provisions trample the rights afforded by the Fourth Amendment. That is, after all, what you are saying in the quote above.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to know why the patriot act is bad (as well all know)

Greystone Thorngage

12-18-2005, 01:43 AM

Osi if your on his side, you too picked the locked door to try and leave the press conference...rock on...

the government should be able to do what ever they want to non citizens in regards to public safety.

two words....Timithoy McVey

My whole issure with the patriot act is the lack of checks and balances, i have nothing to hide, but i will tell you a real life story. I pen and paper roleplay, I also do the landscaping for my grandparents who own a large area of land. I had bought fertilizer quite few times in larger quantities. One day I research bomb making and the chemistry involved for the purposes of roleplaying, my next purchases of fertilizer (i have been buying the same quantity for almost 10 years) I get interviewed, and told it's "standard procedure for any purchases of nitrates in this quantity" I would believe that if the last 30 times it would of happened, but it didnt.

Granted it could be dumb luck, but it also could be keyword recognition and whatever else you want to throw in there.

My rights werent infringed on IMO, but the thought that I know am being watched makes me paranoid .

Kristobel

12-18-2005, 05:38 AM

I'm sure at some point (if not the beginning) this post will be nothing more than a sleep-deprived tangent, but here goes anyway.

I'm sure everyone reading this is aware of age-restricted products such as alcohol, cigarettes, lighter fluid, spray paint, wide-tipped markers, fireworks, videos/music, and movie & lottery tickets, but have you thought about why these laws were deemed necessary? Certain products are considered to present risks to the health and welfare of children, or may present the opportunity for vandalism or destruction of property. Because of these possibilities, their sales to children are prohibited by law. The consequences of sale to minors may be varied, but generally the owner of the business is ultimately responsible and can be prosecuted, even if they did not make the sale personally, or were not present when the sale was made. Individual members of their staff who make the sales can also be prosecuted. This includes people who may "just be helping out". To assist proprietors in upholding these laws and ensuring the safety of kids, there are guidelines set up, whether local, state or federal.

Now, to clue ya all in on where I was going with this!

The Patriot Act is seen by many in the law enforcement community to be a tool much like the guidelines mentioned above. The 'kids' they are entrusted to protect and serve, however, aren't usually as willing as children/teenagers to cooperate and provide information that they think may be even slightly incriminating. If there was some way to know which kid down the street was planning on spray-painting obscenities on my car or house, I would want to know to perhaps have the problem nipped in the bud. I definitely would want to have the same liberty when my neighbor is planning to bomb the corner store .

I do understand how some aspects of the PA could be open to very loose interpretation, even to the point that many Americans might consider some provisions of the Act an infringement on their rights. Granted, it may make some things a bit more tedious, but I just can't understand how anyone would choose to let the powers that be go without access to information that could forseeably prevent another National tragedy.

DiscW

12-19-2005, 04:59 AM

I do understand how some aspects of the PA could be open to very loose interpretation, even to the point that many Americans might consider some provisions of the Act an infringement on their rights. Granted, it may make some things a bit more tedious, but I just can't understand how anyone would choose to let the powers that be go without access to information that could forseeably prevent another National tragedy.[/font]

Two things, one the perfect quote from benjamin franklin, might have been already said:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

Second, how many terrorism convictions have we gotten since the PA went in, that we couldn't have gotten without it? I'd love to know, cause I don't know of even one. Ya know the USF guy, the one who was going to prove how much the PA helped? He wasn't convicted.

There's plenty of places to find out whats wrong with it, I'm just too lazy to bother finding them again. If you're hella lazy, there's always the episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit(a fine show I might add) that talks about big brother, has a few items on it.

Thormir

12-19-2005, 10:07 AM

Sweet, sweet irony (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm). Student taking a course on totalitarianism receives a visit from the feds after ordering Mao's little red book.

Rover

12-19-2005, 10:52 AM

Sweet, sweet irony (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm). Student taking a course on totalitarianism receives a visit from the feds after ordering Mao's little red book.

I think it was the M*A*S*H character Frank Burns who said: "Better Dead than Red"

Well...you know those liberal commie college kids. If we allow them to read Mao, the next thing you know we'll be getting our vegetables from a collective farm.

Seriously that article sums it all up in one neatly wrapped package: The patriot act is better dead than in effect. Good find Thormir!

Thoss

12-19-2005, 12:12 PM

Moglor

12-19-2005, 12:14 PM

Now would Turner's Diary be on that list?

Rover

12-19-2005, 12:41 PM

Ran into that article a couple days ago and I haven't been able to find any more info on the story. Maybe something with an actual statement from DHS or the student, or from a news organization who maybe did a little investigation rather than just spew hearsay and conjecture. I can't recall my high school newspaper articles being that terrible.

I do like how the 500 wiretaps deal comes out of left field though. Are the two related? Did this have anything to do with the Patriot Act? Fuck if we know, the paper isn't going to give us any actual details other than "soandso said this happened and oh ya, Bush did this". Its pretty sad what can pass for journalism sometimes...and people rag on Fox News. But I guess we can overlook the details when it advances our views eh Rover?

All that aside, the thing that gets me is DHS being concerned with communism. A peasant uprising...riight. I would love to see this "watch list" however, I'm guessing there are books on it much more trivial than this one.

Agents' visit chills UMass Dartmouth senior
By AARON NICODEMUS, Standard-Times staff writer
NEW BEDFORD -- A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."
Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.
The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.
The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.
"I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book," Professor Pontbriand said. "Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it."
Although The Standard-Times knows the name of the student, he is not coming forward because he fears repercussions should his name become public. He has not spoken to The Standard-Times.
The professors had been asked to comment on a report that President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to spy on as many as 500 people at any given time since 2002 in this country.
The eavesdropping was apparently done without warrants.
The Little Red Book, is a collection of quotations and speech excerpts from Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung.
In the 1950s and '60s, during the Cultural Revolution in China, it was required reading. Although there are abridged versions available, the student asked for a version translated directly from the original book.
The student told Professor Pontbriand and Dr. Williams that the Homeland Security agents told him the book was on a "watch list." They brought the book with them, but did not leave it with the student, the professors said.
Dr. Williams said in his research, he regularly contacts people in Afghanistan, Chechnya and other Muslim hot spots, and suspects that some of his calls are monitored.
"My instinct is that there is a lot more monitoring than we think," he said.
Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at risk.
"I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web sites, what the government must think of that," he said. "Mao Tse-Tung is completely harmless."
Contact Aaron Nicodemus at anicodemus@s-t.com

Well, the report gave names and a pretty valid reason as to why the student wasn't named.

What kind of details would be needed to make it a valid article?

Sanchek

12-19-2005, 01:45 PM

So, the government knows what you check out from the government libraries? Now that's a shock. The visit by agents might have been a little scary for the kid/family, but it's hardly as if they took the kid away to a hidden European torture facility. They saw that he was, in fact, just a kid doing school work and left.

Again, here they are beating the streets and checking leads. Who's to say an Al'Qaeda operative didn't steal the kid's identity, without checking it out in person? They've been known to use certain texts as Ottendorf Cyphers. That's why they're on a watch list, not because of the actual content.

This is what people criticized them for not doing before 9/11. So, now they're doing it and people are going to complain about that too? Give me a break.

The rest of it is conspiracy theory. All he needs to do is wrap his phone with tin foil and he'll be safe!

Rover

12-19-2005, 02:09 PM

Ottendorf Cyphers

What are they? Nevermind...its cleared up.

I just won't buy into the paranoia that the patriot act is intended to to create. Its much like the terrorism alert crap and the other stuff being pushed on us.

So lets say that Al Qeada sets off a small nuclear device in an American city. Not that it should be allowed to happen, but if it does happen, what are the plans to deal with it? Will they work? Can the city be evacuated? Cleaned up? How do you handle the refugee tide?

After Katrina and Rita I would have hoped our "masters" in Washington would be a bit more concerned with how a situation should be responded to. Therein lies our weakness with terrorism and its resultant disaster.

Blearchie

12-19-2005, 02:20 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Cipher

Rover

12-19-2005, 02:25 PM

Thanks Blearchie, I've heard of that...it was the Ottendorf that confused me.

Ibudin

12-19-2005, 02:45 PM

I just won't buy into the paranoia that the patriot act is intended to to create. Its much like the terrorism alert crap and the other stuff being pushed on us.

So lets say that Al Qeada sets off a small nuclear device in an American city. Not that it should be allowed to happen, but if it does happen, what are the plans to deal with it? Will they work? Can the city be evacuated? Cleaned up? How do you handle the refugee tide?

After Katrina and Rita I would have hoped our "masters" in Washington would be a bit more concerned with how a situation should be responded to. Therein lies our weakness with terrorism and its resultant disaster.

I would rather have the governement working on the prevent rather than .."what ifs". Maybe we could ask the Japanese how to handle a nuclear crisis..I don't think anyone in this world has the absolute plan in the event of a nuclear bomb going off but you can bet they are working on it. You have to work on both ends not just one...the aftermath.

grixxly

12-19-2005, 07:40 PM

I don't think anyone in this world has the absolute plan in the event of a nuclear bomb going off but you can bet they are working on it. You have to work on both ends not just one...the aftermath.

Katrina should have taught a valuable lesson to anyone who assumes the government will be there in the event of a crisis. The statement that I highlighted may be true but who is working on it? It could be a guy named Skippy who trains show dogs for a living that Bush appointed. It could be a hairdresser from Houston or a pool cleaner from Florida...Who knows...just don't assume anything logical is in the works when it comes to government.

Ibudin

12-19-2005, 07:42 PM

Oh yes that could be the case because we know this plan for nuclear disasters must of started on Bush's watch....hmm "cold war" ring a bell.

Sanchek

12-19-2005, 07:46 PM

An ounce of prevention...

Palimax Sceleris

12-19-2005, 07:54 PM

The ounce of prevention line doesn't fit here. This is "who watches the watchers."

Get out of my back yard!

Sanchek

12-19-2005, 07:58 PM

When people are rolling over and more interested in what to do after a nuke goes off than they are in taking whatever measures are needed to prevent it, I think it fits pretty well.

Rover

12-19-2005, 08:21 PM

When people are rolling over and more interested in what to do after a nuke goes off than they are in taking whatever measures are needed to prevent it, I think it fits pretty well.

What we should do is invade the Philippines. There is a sizable moslem population there and by a pre-emptive strike we would cause a mass exodus of moslem "freedom fighters" to infiltrate that country and "fight them over there" instead of here. I think thats what the strategy in Iraq morphed into.

Unlike Iraq, the Philippines also has a sizeable christian population that would not only offer us safe haven but would most likely be in support of "the cause" lending us their own young men to fight. This would also give many young US servicemen the opportunity to once again the experience of throwing nickels to the Philippino girls bathing in "shit river" off of the old base at Subic Bay.

Given the current pre-emptive strike strategy of the Bush administration I think that fits even better than monitoring millions of phone calls and emails of US citizens. The monitors would get sidetracked with a glut of potentially dangerous information and it would save face for our government as there would be less of a possibility of knee jerk mistakes like the Mao book incident.

Sanchek

12-19-2005, 08:39 PM

Explain how the book was a "mistake".

grixxly

12-19-2005, 09:13 PM

When people are rolling over and more interested in what to do after a nuke goes off than they are in taking whatever measures are needed to prevent it, I think it fits pretty well.

I would hope that this country invests more time into what to do after a nuke goes off in this country since the cracks in our borders are gapping. When less then 30% of the imported cargo ships get inspected. When drug smugglers violate every seem in the system to import all sorts of narcotics on a daily basis without interuption. When illegal immigrants or muslim extremists sneak into this country daily as well. Your PA can't become the perfect mouse trap 100% of the time and as everyone knows the terrorists need to be successful only one time! A presidented challenge that is undoubtbly overwhelming for any sort of prevention strategies. I say start preparing for a nuke now before we pull that Bush stick out of that beehive in the middle east.

Rover

12-19-2005, 10:37 PM

Explain how the book was a "mistake".

Look at it this way. If the report is to be taken as 100% accurate, the real question is: Explain how it is not a mistake?

Lleauric

12-19-2005, 10:45 PM

OMG NUKE!
HELP PLEASE SOMEONE SAVE ME FROM UTTER DESTRUCTION.. HERE TAKE ALL MY RIGHTS.....

So we allow FEAR to dictate how we live in and define our "more perfect Union"? The way we are going to win in this battle of ideologies is by the demonstration not of our military prowess, but the courage of our convictions. To diminsh or to infringe on those things which we hold most sacred, our natural rights as citizens diminishes their value. We are up against an ideology that sees as its strength its willingness of its followers to die for what they believe in. There can be no argument that this is a powerful statement. Twisted and wrong, but the power in it is undeniable. It shocks us.

Yet how do we respond? Do we show them that REAL courage is not willingness to die, but to refuse to do anything other than to live by the lofty ideals we have set foward. No, we respond by willingly forking over what others have died to create and protect.
When we are willing to abandon these self evident rights so readily, so quickly... It makes it seem that either we are not worthy of such freedoms or they were never worth having in the first place. Who is sending the wrong message Sanchek? If you ask me its those who are willing to place a false sense of security over real freedoms.

Lets try that slogan as we try to spread Democracy in the Middle East.
"Democracy... Hey.. its not worth dying over."

Kelraz Bladesinger

12-20-2005, 12:18 AM

Do we really want people to have the kind of power that the Patriot Act gives? Its bad enough when our President take liberties into his own hands and break the laws regarding the recent illegal wire taps..

Sanchek

12-20-2005, 12:20 AM

The guys that fly planes into buildings for throngs of virgins in heaven aren't going to be pacified by us flaunting the very convictions that agitate them to begin with.

I'm all for us remaining strong in the face of whatever enemy comes our way, but what beneficial effect could ever be had by not doing all we possibly can to stop tragedies from occurring in the first place. Even if there weren't a clear and present threat to our people and our very way of life, haven't we already learned the dangers of isolationism and pacifism?

It's often said that one of the greatest things about our form of government is its ability to change and adapt to the times. The Patriot Act may not have been perfect, but it was certainly not contrary to the spirit of what the founding fathers had in mind.

If we stubbornly refuse to adapt, our pride will be a joke and it will be our children who pay the real price.

Look at it this way. If the report is to be taken as 100% accurate, the real question is: Explain how it is not a mistake?
This incident has got to be the worst exaggeration on the entire thread.

Agents followed up a lead and determined it was, in fact, not a threat. This is exactly what they're supposed to be doing. It's exactly what you yourself complained about them not doing in the flight school incident.

They didn't detain the kid. They didn't charge him with any crime. They didn't take an iota of action toward the professor (or even talk to him). So, what's the problem?

Would you seriously be happier if all a terrorist has to do is impersonate the identity of a college student in order to be immune to any investigation? Are you joking? I really don't understand what your problem with the incident is.

Kelraz Bladesinger

12-20-2005, 12:27 AM

Sanchek, you are completely right. History has shown countries that give up freedoms for safety are far better off in the long run. I mean like Prague, the jews there gave up all their freedoms for government protection, that worked pretty well right. Or after the Nazi's left, Communism was their salvation there. That was gonna protect them.

Well actually, I doubt you can name 1 time a country gave up their freedoms for protection from the government that actually worked well.

Sanchek

12-20-2005, 12:41 AM

I'm sorry, give up freedom? Don't be ridiculous. You're sounding as much like a blowhard high school text book as L2.

We have never had the freedom to operate completely outside of the jurisdiction of the law. The Patriot Act took away a very small measure of privacy from a small number of people, and that is all.

Honestly, if you want to communicate privately then you shouldn't be using the telephone, Internet, or email to begin with. I have no doubt that bored sysadmins have read more private emails than the FBI ever will. Pretending like your privacy has suddenly been violated now, using grandiose rhetoric, is just silly.

Malse

12-20-2005, 01:00 AM

Honestly, if you want to communicate privately then you shouldn't be using the telephone, Internet, or email to begin with. ... Pretending like your privacy has suddenly been violated now, using grandiose rhetoric, is just silly.

It is illegal for individuals to do that in many cases and definitely illegal to use the information gained therein, and used to be illegal for government to do it too. Now if an individual does it you still have recourse, if the government does YOU probably broke the law if you found out.

The goodness or badness of a law shouldn't be judged by its spirit but by the worst excesses it allows, and the Patriot Act allows some incredibly sinister behavior. Circumventing the court system alone is cause for serious alarm, and already has been abused. It hasn't been abused to hyperbolic Godwinization levels, but given human history that is merely a matter of time and there is no reason to wait until then to strike it down.

I have no doubt that bored sysadmins have read more private emails than the FBI ever will.

Used to be true. No longer is, as the FBI and other organization share a system that flags on keywords and theoretically eventually alerts a human operator. This was in place before 9/11 on non-US citizens and managed to not prevent an attack on the most obvious, most attacked symbol of neoliberal imperialism in the world by a previously well known threat -- just about the best case you could possibly want for a milk-run detection. I can't see how anyone has faith that allowing the government to legally spy on its own citizens with NO oversight and NO recourse by the citizens is going to ever do more good than harm.

Roliel

12-20-2005, 01:10 AM

The polarity of this issue is a little disturbing. First off, all governed people give up some rights and freedoms in favor of more security. Anyone who took a government class in highschool should understand the very basic concept of the "social contract," as that's essentially what's being debated here. On the other side of the coin, saying we should do "whatever we need to do" in order to prevent terrorist attacks is an equally invalid blanket statement.

Quoting our "founding fathers" is just rethorical diatribe, as is the whole "but, the terrorists will win!" bullshit. It has no basis in this argument. It should be assumed that anyone reading these boards has a reasonably strong grasp on political ideology, or at the very least, a strong enough grasp to understand the quotes we've heard in school since 8th grade. It's not complex stuff.

Given that we have to give up some liberties for the sake of security - and we do - this discussion should center around where to draw that line. The specific pros and cons of the act should be debated, along with possible resolutions or improvements. It definitely shouldn't include any Benjamin Franklin quotes.

Elemak the Enchanter

12-20-2005, 02:03 AM

I think we need something like the Patriot Act, where we can get wire taps, etc quicker than normal; however we definitely need some sort of oversight to it. As well, I think law enforcement should only be able to use these methods for counter-terrorism. Busting Bubba the bud grower using methods legalized by the Patriot Act isn't what I think congress had in mind when it was passed the first time.

As far as preparing for the aftermath more than preventing a nuclear blast...

Are you retarded?

Yes we need to plan heavily for the aftermath of a nuke, and for natural disaster's for that matter. But for fuck's sake if we can do anything more to prevent it we should.

Lleauric

12-20-2005, 06:39 AM

Anyone who took a government class in highschool should understand the very basic concept of the "social contract," as that's essentially what's being debated here.

What you are trying to say is the basic Hobbes v Locke debate. BTW... Locke wins the debate. Locke argued (counter to Hobbes) that the state existed to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. Hobbes' view was that the states overriding duty was to prevent the violent death of its people.

Locke put foward that all natural rights are sacrosanct, one does not subvert one to the benefit of another.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated..
— Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

We have a process to define reasonable.

The promotion of fear on a populace is the greatest method to getting them to willingly give up their rights. Wether it be the counter revolutionaries in 1789 France, any communist regime, the Burning of the Reichstag or it seems the present day situation.

Rights need to be guarded and defended jealously and fanatically, or a people will lose them. A powerful govt will slowly erode them over the course of time until nothing remains.

Rover

12-20-2005, 08:35 AM

Thormir

12-20-2005, 09:20 AM

For over 25 years before there was a Patriot Act there was and still is an existing foreign surveillance law. The law allows the US government to tap international communications of people in the United States and then go to a secret court up to 72 hours later for retroactive permission to do so. Is that not sufficient?
This is FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). So what has the administration argued to justify their circumvention of FISA? They say they need to streamline the process. But as noted above, they can retroactively apply for a warrant up to 72 hours later. And how often are warrants refused?
Not often (http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html) at all.

So what other justification is given? Gonzales (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html) and Bush claim that the authorization to use force following September 11 gave the President authority to circumvent wiretapping laws:
Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.
But during Q&A we see this:
Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.
So, Gonzales says that the authorization for force implies that Congress gave the administration their imprimatur to circumvent the law, but when asked why te administration didn't request a specific statute for this from Congress, Gonzales says Congress wouldn't have given it!

So instead of FISA judges overseeing wiretapping, we have shift supervisors.

This all leads me to wonder just why BushCo would bother. FISA allows for considerable flexibility, yet they opt for police state tactics. Just who do Bush, Cheney, Bolton, Hadley and such want surveilled so badly but don't want to go to a judge over it?

I'm sure a lot of people here trust the names above to use this power discretely and for the best of purposes, but I'm not one of them. Not any administration, and especially not this one.

Thormir

12-20-2005, 09:40 AM

Dessert (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html):
Bush, April 20, 2004:
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

Rover

12-20-2005, 10:12 AM

This incident has got to be the worst exaggeration on the entire thread.

Agents followed up a lead and determined it was, in fact, not a threat. This is exactly what they're supposed to be doing. It's exactly what you yourself complained about them not doing in the flight school incident.

They didn't detain the kid. They didn't charge him with any crime. They didn't take an iota of action toward the professor (or even talk to him). So, what's the problem?

Would you seriously be happier if all a terrorist has to do is impersonate the identity of a college student in order to be immune to any investigation? Are you joking? I really don't understand what your problem with the incident is.

Do you honestly think that terrorists would need to use such an arcane way of passing along information? They use things like shared email accounts, otherwise innociuos forums on the internet, chatrooms etc..

They understand that there is a risk in sending emails so they do things like this: Login to one of the many free email sites offered. Write an email, save it as a draft, log out. Terrorist "B" logs in, reads the email draft, deletes it, logs out. The email never being sent and never running the risk of it being monitored.

Do you really think they would wait for a book to be transferred amongst libraries to use the "Ottendorf Cyphers " scenario, when they could do it faster with a post on a message board and in a language that would take time for the US to translate?

akipt

12-20-2005, 10:15 AM

As always, the amount of hysteria on this board is way overblown.

This NSA stuff was used against Al quida. We're at war with Al quida. Congress gave Bush authorization to do that. Since it's obvious from the amount of hysteria on this board that everyone is missing the point:

WE DON'T HAVE TO GET A FUCKING WARRANT TO WAGE WAR AGAINST THEM.

As is now becoming historically demostrated, the Dems want to politicize our national security.. an area in which the American people overwhelmingly trust the Republicans more with. I thought Kerry was joking about impeaching Bush after the Dems "win back the House in 2006." Guess he was serious because Pelosi is saying the same thing now.

If you want to win back the House, get serious with my fucking national security please. I'm begging you. No more bull shit like this...

"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities... As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney." ~ Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat

What the FUCK is he doing as the #2 man on our nation's HIGHEST Intelligence oversight committee then??? In otherwords, "I don't know what the fuck all that techno babble was, but I was cool with it cuz they were catching Al quida." Fast forward 2 years and he wants to play dumb. Yeah, that makes me want to put his party in charge. What a fucking joke.

Thormir

12-20-2005, 10:45 AM

So, "waging war" against al-Qaeda = break the law at will? So long as the President is doing what akipt thinks he's doing, he can do anything he want, legal or otherwise?
What the FUCK is he doing as the #2 man on our nation's HIGHEST Intelligence oversight committee then???
Heh, Bush is President and you're complaining about the #2 man on a Senate committee? I don't know what Pat Roberts' qualifications are to be #1 on the Intel Committee, but he's a rubberstamp for Bush anyway, so the search for understanding and accountability has to start somewhere.
Rockefeller's letter (http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v002/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/20051219_Rockfellerletter.pdf), btw, asking for clarification and more information.

Fact is, Bush had statutory means by which his intel operation could engage in wiretapping, and he chose to circumvent them. He broke the law. Rationalizing that an authorization to use force allows breaking the law fails. But of course, this is the same group that approves of torture to extract bad intel, so it's nothing new.
George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000

akipt

12-20-2005, 11:03 AM

So, "waging war" against al-Qaeda = break the law at willAnd what law would that be?

You're fighting on losing ground. Even if Bush broke some mystical law you want to conjure up in your head, the American people can see through that, period.

Congress gave him the power to wage war. I know this might be difficult for you to comprehend, but all the normal everyday processes we have domestically to protect your rights are out the window when you go to war against us. No more warrants, no more "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", no more "put down your weapon or I'll shoot" warning. We shoot first, ask questions later.

You have completely lost it in my opinion. If you want to get in a sparring match politically with Bush because he infringed on some ass fuck Al Quida operative's rights, be my guest.

Thormir

12-20-2005, 11:12 AM

And what law would that be?

FISA.

Shorter version of the rest of akipt: Police state is fine.

Rover

12-20-2005, 11:16 AM

And what law would that be?

You're fighting on losing ground. Even if Bush broke some mystical law you want to conjure up in your head, the American people can see through that, period.

Congress gave him the power to wage war. I know this might be difficult for you to comprehend, but all the normal everyday processes we have domestically to protect your rights are out the window when you go to war against us. No more warrants, no more "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", no more "put down your weapon or I'll shoot" warning. We shoot first, ask questions later.

You have completely lost it in my opinion. If you want to get in a sparring match politically with Bush because he infringed on some ass fuck Al Quida operative's rights, be my guest.

It would be this law:

It is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act(18 U.S.C. § 1385) 1878, which limits the activities of the military within the United States. The United States military may only take those actions that are specifically authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

The National Security Agency is a joint services component of the Department of Defense; it is part of the military, which is why it is headquartered at Fort George G. Meade in Maryland and the Director is a uniformed flag officer.

After the end of the Cold War, NSA attempted to expand its mission by performing security audits on the computer systems of other government agencies, but the request was denied because the activity would require Congressional authorization or it would violate the Posse Comitatus Act.
The newer laws simply increase the illegality.

Bush's claim that "a newspaper jeopardized national security by revealing that he authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11" is patently absurd. The "bad guys" are well aware that we can monitor communications, and that other foreign countries also "listen in" on international calls.

This was an administration that informed bin Laden that we were tracing him with his satellite telephone. As a result we caught bin Laden's bodyguard who left with the phone to lay a false trail. During the Bolton hearings there were multiple references to NSA intercepts that involved American officials. The administration that revealed the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency asset working on monitoring the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has a lot of gall attempting to claim that this article does any injury to the national security. The only security affected by the Times reporting is the job security of those involved in these illegal acts.

Someone needs to explain to the White House that the divine right of kings was discarded several centuries ago and no one, even the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, is above the law.

Al Qaeda wins when the United States acts in an illegal manner. When we cast aside our laws in the name of "security", the terrorists advance. Bush needs to find a little backbone and stop caving in to threats. The system that survived the combined might of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Japan, that outlasted the threat of the nuclear forces of the Soviet Union can surely overcome a motley crew of nutjobs without devolving to a government more suited to the 16th century.

akipt

12-20-2005, 11:45 AM

The United States military may only take those actions that are specifically authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

Thanks for helping Rover.

Rover

12-20-2005, 11:53 AM

Thanks for helping Rover.

Your welcome!

Did congress authorize Bush to let the NSA spy on US citizens in the US? Please provide the information.

I don't think anyone has any issues with monitoring terrorist communications.

With the known track record of this Administration and their "smear" tactics of demonizing those who speak out against them or are in simple dis-agreement with them I would highly doubt that they are exclusively monitoring terrorist communications.

akipt

12-20-2005, 11:53 AM

FISA. That's not the only tool Bush has to use against Al quida.

Shorter version of the rest of akipt: Police state is fine. No, a state that gives rights to Al quida is NOT fine, nor is a police state against the law abiding citizens of this country. Nice try though. Try harder to argue the merits of your assertions without blattant false statements against me next time, eh?

akipt

12-20-2005, 11:58 AM

Did congress authorize Bush to let the NSA spy on US citizens in the US? Please provide the information.

Why yes they did...

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved, September 14, 2001 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html).

Thormir

12-20-2005, 12:03 PM

Akipt, you -- like Bush -- are relying on falsehoods to perpetuate this idea that warrantless wiretaps aren't illegal, and that anything goes during war. It's the same justification used to rationalize torture, and it's the same justification rationalizing surveillance of those law abiding citizens (http://nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=171df5b870cdd147&hp&ex=1135141200&partner=homepage) you mentioned.
One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

FISA may not be the only tool (and of course it is not), but FISA regulates the use of certain tools -- in this case, wiretapping. And FISA provided Bush and the NSA with extreme latitude in their use of taps, yet they decided to circumvent the law anyway, using an authorization for military force as their flimsy excuse.
Military force does not mean we can torture our captives to find out what they'll say to avoid further torture. Likewise, military force does not mean laws do not need to be followed. I'm not a big Patriot Act fan, but I have no problem with responsible use of FISA.

This is just breaking of the law and should be examined. Specter wants to hold hearings, which is a good sign.

EDIT: force

Malse

12-20-2005, 12:25 PM

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Resolution referenced here does not itself supersede the PCA that prohibits the use of military personel and assets within the United States and against its citizens. You should be fond of that law since it was used to demonize Clinton over the Waco mess with some other looney "terrorists." Don't forget these laws may be in effect when a Democrat or Green Party or Libertarian is elected to the White House, too.

You all need to remember that even if you think that President's activities are ethically acceptable (everyone has their own opinion), it's still illegal and implicitly unconstitutional. This is precisely the sort of executive excess that document is nominally supposed to stop, and the attacks on public media and individuals for revealing those excesses are not painting any rosier a picture of their motives.

I am drawn back to something Thormir posed earlier that is nicely illustrative. If the Bush administration feels they have legal authority to spy on anyone related to terrorism, why do they need the Patriot Act and its circumventions of court oversight? It begs the question of who they really want to surveil.

Thormir

12-20-2005, 01:13 PM

If the Bush administration feels they have legal authority to spy on anyone related to terrorism, why do they need the Patriot Act and its circumventions of court oversight? It begs the question of who they really want to surveil.

A few other thoughts:
Congress passed the Patriot Act a few weeks after authorizing military force. If Congress had intended for that authorization to encompass wiretapping, why spend so much time reworking and adapting FISA to terrorism investigations? Why consider a new set of rules if, essentially, the rules could be thrown out the window?

I asked the question Malse cites before, and it goes pretty far. One possible answer is journalists, especially those reporting info critical of administration policies. But there's more to consider.

In the weeks after 9/11, Congress would have passed just about anything, especially with a Republican majority. But BushCo didn't seek a specific statute and, as Gonzales says, didn't think they could get it passed. But surely any casual broadening of powers (such as expanding wiretap usage on individuals) would receive congressional approval. So what did BushCo have in mind, what could be so intrusive, that even congressional Republicans would balk at it?

Rockefeller mentions Poindexter and TIA (http://www.warblogging.com/tia/) (Total Information Awareness) in his memo to Cheney, along with stating that he isn't a "technician." Bush tried to obtusely differentiate between "monitoring" and "detection." Bill Keller (in his NYT editorial about this story) referred to withholding "a number of technical details." Gonzales, above, said that bringing the changes to FISA they wanted before Congress couldn't happen without " jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program." All this seems out of place when referring to the use of mere wiretaps, which are basically well understood and would remain in use under FISA even if Congress refused to expand the powers to ignore warrants.

Sounds more like BushCo is using massive data mining.

akipt

12-20-2005, 01:25 PM

Malse & Thormir, are we or are we not at war with Al quida?

If someone (including a US citizen) wants to call them up on an international phone call, Bush has the authorization - no the responsibility to trace and record that call - period. No bloviating, no FISA, no warrants, no political begging required. Congress gave him that authority. I damned well EXPECT him to execute that authority to fullest of his abilities.

I'm begging the Democrats to pull their heads out of their asses and get real with national security. It's a deal breaker for me now. If the Dems aren't going to protect me and my family, I'm voting straight Republican unless I see Leiberman as an option. It's a shame really, I want the option to pick and choose on the domestic stuff, but they're not giving me that opportunity and it's going to once again unfortunately show after 2006's elections.

I completely understand the civil liberty concerns by people. After Lincoln, FDR, Nixon, and Clinton, who wouldn't be weary of a president exercising too much power? But show me something other than a student who request's Mao's book and getting a simple visit by the DHS. Show me something even close to this...

http://www.hkpro.com/image/actionelian2.jpg

or this...

http://www.serendipity.li/waco/tanks1.jpg

...by Bush and I'll be concerned. But currently, I see Al quida getting spied on and no attacks on our homeland since 9/11. Cry me a fucking river for their rights.

Palimax Sceleris

12-20-2005, 01:39 PM

I completely understand the civil liberty concerns by people.No, you clearly don't.

You can't be free if you're living under the specter of secret laws (http://www.lp.org/fp/article_251.shtml) and constant monitoring (http://www.lp.org/article_253.shtml). A "gentle" tyrant is still a tyrant.

Malse

12-20-2005, 01:39 PM

If we are at war with Al Qaeda, why are we trying to pass laws that have nothing to do with catching them, and reinforce systems that utterly failed to catch them before despite having every advantage? (it has *always* been legal, from our perspective, for the NSA, CIA, and military assets to spy on foreign nationals, which they have been doing since inception)

You're polarizing the issue with invective. It's not in any way constructive, and in the event we finally give up on trying to sell Iraq piecemeal to the highest no-bidders so we can bring them the democratic gifts of cell phone text messages and Clear Channel music distribution, and get back to the war on Al Qaeda -- what happens with all these laws (that apparently are not necessary to prosecute said war with the granted executive authority) when Bush's board of directors is out of office and the political backlash over at-home social issues get whomever your least-favorite bleeding heart liberal is elected? Who is he going to use the excessively broad Patriot Act to deem sufficiently dissenting as to qualify as a terroristic threat?

Back in the 90s you had huge uproar in the Southern Poverty Law fanbase (you should hate them) over the "coming storm of unregulated midwestern militias" who were everything evil about the world and conveniently white. (all that FBI analysis still failed to notice the plot to bomb the Oklahoma federal building. Good Guys still batting .000) Would you like everyone with a NRA membership open to secret wiretaps the next time there is a publicized incident of school violence? How about all members of the Republican Party if we find out a Republican businessman profiteered off the Terrorists Regimes in the Middle East? (because it's not like that ever happened)

The Patriot Act allows that. Which is the point. The law is bad, even if you want increased surveillance, because it's vague, broad, and emasculates accountability. Most of the people against the PSA are not "for the terrorists" and not even implicitly against increased surveillance of them. They just read the damn law and connected the dots, and "secret courts" and "without judicial oversight" are some pretty damn huge blinking red dots.

This has nothing to do with Republicans and Democrats. The law is bad no matter who wrote it, no matter who voted for it, and no matter who is in office.

Thormir

12-20-2005, 01:43 PM

Shorter akipt: The President is above the law.

Congress did not authorize the President to circumvent FISA. Lindsey Graham "do[es]n't know of any legal basis." Arlen Specter says this behavior "can't be condoned." Surely if they had authorized this power, they'd not be so concerned. FISA allows the administration all the flexibility it needs to carry on the war with al-Qaeda. If it didn't, they should have gone to Congress and asked the people's representatives for more.

Akipt, the question is: Is the President above the law or subject to it?

Dante Moradis

12-20-2005, 02:04 PM

You mean like Perjuring yourself about sexual relations? I hear what yer saying.

Palimax Sceleris

12-20-2005, 02:56 PM

You mean like Perjuring yourself about sexual relations? I hear what yer saying....which has ZERO to do with this.

...but, for the millionth time, during the Paula Jones testimony the agreed upon definition of "sexual relations" did not include oral sex. Later, during his public apology he used the term again to describe his misgivings. The house did vote to impeach on two of his four, but the Senate never did - on any count.

It isn't ok to abuse your powers as president (Bush) just because another president had a mistress (Clinton, Kennedy, et al).

Palimax Sceleris

12-20-2005, 02:58 PM

Akipt, the question is: Is the President above the law or subject to it?You know this one's going to get tapdanced around by the go-go-rah-rah Bush types.

Bush stated one of the reasons he permitted NSA domestic wiretapping without a warrant and not go through FISA is "because it enables us to move faster and quicker." He explained FISA is "for long-term monitoring." President Bush said that the NSA domestic wiretapping is only for calls that originate from overseas, not those within the country. He claimed they would still go through the FISA courts for calls that are within the country. A reporter who caught this contradiction asked why the administration did not go through the FISA courts for all calls. President Bush responded by stating, "I said we use the FISA courts to monitor calls. It's a very important tool, and we do use it. I just want to make sure we've got all tools at our disposal."
The quote above is pretty much Bush saying, "Fuck the courts."

akipt

12-20-2005, 03:07 PM

Akipt, the question is: Is the President above the law or subject to it?
No, the question is, do you want an Al-quida Bill of Rights and have their day in court? My answer is no:WE DON'T HAVE TO GET A FUCKING WARRANT TO WAGE WAR AGAINST [Al Quida].

That's not tap dancing.

Palimax Sceleris

12-20-2005, 03:18 PM

He's not tapdancing around the issue, but he won't answer the question.

Is the President of the United States above the law?"

Palimax Sceleris

12-20-2005, 03:19 PM

And I'll answer your badly phrased question. Even if it means a possibility of increased terrorism, I'll still keep the Bill of Rights, thank you.

Fandros

12-20-2005, 03:53 PM

Simply said, noone is above the law.

That being put forth, there are actions and needs to be served that the common public will always be the last to know. Until we become a nation where ever act is instantly voted on it will remain thus.

Fandros

Palimax Sceleris

12-20-2005, 04:16 PM

Fandros, akpit seems to believe that it's ok for the law to be circumvented, as long as we're doing "good" things with that circumvention, like catching terrorists.

...and, with the secret ID-to-fly law, I'm not so sure I'm keen on "being the last to know" as well.

akipt

12-20-2005, 04:53 PM

Fandros, akpit seems to believe that it's ok for the law to be circumvented, as long as we're doing "good" things with that circumvention, like catching terrorists.
Sigh. No, I did not. No member of the Executive Branch is ever above the law, period.

FISA and Hamdi vs US both reaffirm that any US citizen who conspires with a foreign agent loses citizenship with the US. We're not talking about "rights of US citizens" in this easedropping issue - so no more civil and criminal courts for them either, since we're at war with these people.

However, if you are one of the people today that think the president admitted to a federal crime the other day, then you probably see the war on terror as pretty much a civil and criminal matter that can handled in the courts. Much like Kerry and the previous Clinton administration did.

If you're like me and believe Congress explicitly gave Bush the authority and responsibility to go after Al quida and anyone else aiding them by all means necessary in its war resolution, then you probably view this through a paradigm of war.

"Oh nooz, that's frightening! We can't allow that! what if he abuses it!??!" What if he did? I'm sure it would have been a NYT headline 3 years ago.

In the end, the American people are going to hear how Bush listened to counsel, got the nod from the Justive Dept, sent the information over to the apropriate people in Congress (even if they were too inept to understand it,) engaged in 45 day oversight reviews with the FISA Court anyway, and successfully protected our country from terrorists. The good guys won and the Dems end up looking weak and confused on defense even more.

Palimax Sceleris

12-20-2005, 05:04 PM

Does having the "authority and responsibilty" to go after Al Quida give the government license to, without obtaining a warrant, listen to my phone conversations because "I just might be a terrorist?"

In fact, you might be a terrorist. We'll know for sure after we listen to all of your calls.

Palimax Sceleris

12-20-2005, 05:09 PM

...so, let me remind you all. The President authorized illegial wiretaps.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=print
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/
http://www.lp.org/article_253.shtml

YOU might be a terrorist.

Dante Moradis

12-20-2005, 05:18 PM

Your question is pointless, because everyone knows the answer. No man is above the law. Your negative rep hit as a "hand slap" doesn't faze me either. The comparison is NOT trolling or off topic. You claim he didn't perjure himself, but a majority of Representatives disagreed with you.

This article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeach122098.htm) clears up some of the bullshit, but not all. Point is, the man was evasive, and used semantics to cover up what SOME feel was perjury. He DANCED around the law. Dismiss it all you want, at least Bush seems to want to bypass the law for a reason. I DON'T agree with him, but he's at least up front about it. People demonize him as President, and my point that people don't seem to recall he hasn't been our only President who's seemed to disreguard the law. Clinton was abysmally amoral, got caught, bent the (broke it if ya ask me) truth to try and cover, and had anyone else done the same thing, they'd likely need a good lawyer or face jailtime.

Don't point to the innocence of a man who's indescretions are a matter of public record. Oral sex IS sexual relations. Saying you thought it meant only intercourse might work against 6 year old lawyers, but its just sad for anyone to actually DEFEND that stance. Point being, only his reputation was tarnished by his affair, his weak attempt at perjury should have gotten more than what he received.

As for the authorization of the wiretaps, and your tripe about "you might be a terrorist" because they may listen to YOUR phones next? Be for real. You know NOTHING about the reasoning behind the authorization of those wiretaps at all. You know nothing about what they may or may not have averted or what lives they may or may not have saved. Do you think before the Patriot Act they didn't authorize illegal wiretaps? REALLY? Do you think Saint Clinton never signed his name to a piece of paper bypassing a law in a covert operation? REALLY?

Palimax Sceleris

12-20-2005, 05:25 PM

It's still off-topic, and no matter how you twist it, two wrongs doesn't make for ANY rights.

This president authorized illegial wiretaps.

It is unrelated to Clinton getting blown in the Oval or Jefferson farthering children by his slaves.

Finally, as to reputaiton hits, I already gave out my maximum +Rep today (about 70 or so). I save my negatives for the trolls.

Palimax Sceleris

12-20-2005, 05:31 PM

Oh, Cheney is busy explaining that without these wiretaps, we wouldn't have been safe these last four years.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/20/cheney.wiretaps/

Cheney said the program had "saved thousands of lives."

"It is, I'm convinced, one of the reasons we haven't been attacked in the past four years," Cheney said.

Rover

12-20-2005, 05:38 PM

You know NOTHING about the reasoning behind the authorization of those wiretaps at all. You know nothing about what they may or may not have averted or what lives they may or may not have saved.

And YOU know?

Do you think before the Patriot Act they didn't authorize illegal wiretaps

Yes, they did. I believe it was Nixon.

The problem is not with wiretapping terrorists, I must re-state: I don't think anyone has an issue with that.

The problem is with being told essentially that in order to save your civil liberties from the terrorist threat we have to destroy your civil liberties. Much like what was said during the Vietnam war: In order to save the village we had to destroy it.

Kind of senseless, dont you think?

Roliel

12-20-2005, 09:16 PM

Dante, the comparison might be accurate, but it's not relevant. It holds no bearing on Bush's actions.

You know NOTHING about the reasoning behind the authorization of those wiretaps at all. You know nothing about what they may or may not have averted or what lives they may or may not have saved.

That's pretty much what bothers me, and I would suspect it's the same thing that bothers Palimax, Thormir, and just about everyone else concerned about the Patriot act and Bush's questionable authorization of wiretaps.

Lleauric

12-20-2005, 10:04 PM

Did he authorize the use of Echelon domestically?

I guess thats the million dollar question.

grixxly

12-20-2005, 10:22 PM

I'd like to dedicate the enclosed link to all the people in this thread who feel the shrub can't do no wrong. Enjoy Merry Christmas!

http://www.toonedin.com/movies/WhiteTrashXmas.html

Kelraz Bladesinger

12-21-2005, 12:18 AM

Maybe I'm playing WoW too much, but Bush just seems to be like the Scarlet Crusade. You can argue that he's doing good, but ultimately every day it seems more like out of the story books where a crazy zealot is so driven by some goal they don't care how many innocents they stomp over. Then these Zealots also manage to brainwash an army of smallminded people into doing their bidding too, and if we take that WoW analogy too far we can say Cheney is Balnazar pulling the strings behind the whole thing :)

Rover

12-21-2005, 03:21 AM

Maybe I'm playing WoW too much

You should probably get more sleep also.

Kelraz Bladesinger

12-21-2005, 03:24 AM

Possibly, I have been retardedly busy since the Redskins thwomped Dallas. I don't work Christmas day, I'll sleep then :)

fildien

12-21-2005, 09:18 AM

I'd like to dedicate the enclosed link to all the people in this thread who feel the shrub can't do no wrong. Enjoy Merry Christmas!

http://www.toonedin.com/movies/WhiteTrashXmas.html

This made me laugh and it so reminds me of my redneck family back in NC :)

Thormir

12-21-2005, 09:58 AM

Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe are also requesting hearings -- a good sign. Perhaps they'll ask why, if Bush thought his use of warrantless wiretaps was perfectly legal and authorized by Congress, he stated in 2004 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html#) that ...there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.
when the administration was not, in fact, getting court orders for all their wiretaps.

A FISA judge has resigned, evidently not very happy with this.

Thormir

12-21-2005, 10:25 AM

Did he authorize the use of Echelon domestically?

I guess thats the million dollar question.Also possible that the NSA has compromised a telecommunications service, such as a satellite phone manufacturer, telecom carrier or a satellite itself. In that case, you don't have to rely on intercepts; you'd be getting the signal from the source.

Also, the President and his supporters justify his use of these "wiretaps" (or whatever) based on this being a "time of war," and the President having expanded powers during "wartime." But just how do we define "wartime?" How far does this definition go? Did the Cold War qualify? Given the nature of the War on Terror, does it belong in the same class as, say, WW2?

Of course, being at war doesn't mean the President has carte blanche or can break the law at will. If Bush wanted more power, he could have and should have gone to Congress for it and followed its recommendation, not decided that Congress wouldn't go along so put in the program surreptitiously.

Rover

12-21-2005, 12:22 PM

Interesting Article: Spy court judge quits in protest (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/21/spyjudge.resigns.ap/index.html)

Note in the article how Cheney is calling for "Strong and Robust" presidential powers. Kind of scary.

Bylimet Spiritwalker

12-21-2005, 01:18 PM

Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe are also requesting hearings -- a good sign. Perhaps they'll ask why, if Bush thought his use of warrantless wiretaps was perfectly legal and authorized by Congress, he stated in 2004 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html#) that
when the administration was not, in fact, getting court orders for all their wiretaps.

A FISA judge has resigned, evidently not very happy with this.

The 2004 quote by Bush stating to the American people that wiretaps required a court order seems to be on the same level of Clinton telling the American people that he did not have sex with that woman. No, wait a minute.....infidelity is not the same as illegally recording someone's conversation, though neither are acceptable(unless it is Linda Tripp doing it for the Republican party to use in furthering their witch hunt).

Sorry for derail, but I could not resist tossing this silly stuff back at a few folks, hehe.

shanno

12-21-2005, 01:31 PM

Is the president above the law? Nope. Does the president have the right and priveledge to authorize something if he feels it will stop a direct threat to national security? I think so. Especially when it involves something that is a threat from outside this country.

Something here that really bothers me is the concern that people have about "someone" listening in on thier phone conversations or reading thier e-mail. It happens right now, and most of you either do not care, or do not have a clue. How many people work for companies that monitor e-mail transmissions? Probably many more than you think. Alot of companies look at e-mail for keywords and alert someone if there is a possiblity of any corporate secrets getting out, and are NOT required to tell the employees they do it. If you do not think so, then do research. How is what the president is doing any different?

This is also a good article..
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

I really like this part...

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant

Kelraz Bladesinger

12-21-2005, 01:36 PM

"Does the president have the right and priveledge to authorize something if he feels it will stop a direct threat to national security? I think so. Especially when it involves something that is a threat from outside this country."

Yeah, the President should just bypass the other 2 branches of government, round up all the people of Middle Eastern decent in our country, then we'll be safe. I mean, they could be terrorists.

OR, the President should ... you know ... follow the laws that were put forth so fucked up things don't happen.

Now, I'm gonna quote George W. Bush from April, discussing the Patriot Act: "When I say we are gonna go out and get the terrorists, I mean we are gonna go to the Judicial branch to get a warrant to place a wjretap."

Bylimet Spiritwalker

12-21-2005, 02:02 PM

Something here that really bothers me is the concern that people have about "someone" listening in on thier phone conversations or reading thier e-mail.

Something that really bothers me is the lack of adherence to the principles of Democracy this country was founded on; I find it unbelievable that so many of my son's generation are so willing to relinquish to the government basic civil rights. Is it apathy? Much like the lack of interest in the political process as a whole?

It is too bad our schools can no longer teach the history we learned when I was growing up, or the process we are undergoing these last few years, and what looks to be the next couple, would truly frighten many as they started to see parallels to previous police states in the world's past. I am not saying Bush is comparable to Stalin or Hitler or Tito or other dictators the world has seen, but he is getting dangerously close to repeating the processes they enacted in their push to create their dictatorships.

Blind obedience to the Commander-in-chief is not necessarily a good thing, believe it or not. Especially one who has shown such a pattern of contradiction.

akipt

12-21-2005, 02:06 PM

Clintonitler! (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed)
President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
The Clinton administration has repeatedly attempted to play down the significance of the warrant clause. In fact, President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing of public school students, and warrantless wiretapping.
Carteritler! (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm)
Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section
And thank God we got rid of another liberal whackadoo judge from a very important national security court. We didn't even have to do anything, he left on his own. Merry Christmas!

Kelraz Bladesinger

12-21-2005, 02:25 PM

Akipt, that holds no weight on this discussion at all. Because 2 people did bad things, 3 wrongs make a right?

Rover

12-21-2005, 02:26 PM

Well that is a great argument to show that warrantless wiretaps most certainly didn't stop any attacks on the US. Great post! Thanks.

Thormir

12-21-2005, 03:03 PM

From the Chicago Trib article:
"All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
This is a bit of a misquote. The sentence begins (http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html): "The Truong Court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held..." Truong was decided the same year FISA was passed (1978) and did not deal with FISA law. And
Although Truong suggested the line it drew was a constitutional minimum that would apply to a FISA surveillance, see id. at 914 n.4, it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute carefully.
This case dealt with the president's powers in the absence of a statute. We now have a statute. The article also omits an important point:
We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse...
This court assumed Truong granted the President the ability to conduct warrantless searches. What they examined instead was "...does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable."
[1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the] Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Hmm...what might those certifications entail (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html)? Well, in part...
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party,

Clinton and Carter issued their executive orders to implement the powers granted by Congress. Bush issued his order to circumvent the law granting those powers. And in akiptler's world, "man of integrity" equals "liberal whackadoo."

Whatever.

Furtivus

12-21-2005, 04:16 PM

This case dealt with the president's powers in the absence of a statute. We now have a statute.

If the president's powers existed in the absence of a statute (i.e. the powers were derived from the Constitution), a statute cannot take those powers away. In other words, Congress cannot strip a Constitutional power such as the power to pardon or make treaties from the President. You're arguing for a gross subversion of the balance of power in the Constitution.

Fandros

12-21-2005, 04:25 PM

Guess this is a big hulabaloo about nothing to me.

There is nothing I discuss through email/phone or postings that I would feel as though I lost civil liberties if Uncle Sam were to read it.

So, would all of you opponents to the Patriot Act be okay with Racial Profiling to nail down possible terrorists? Would it make you happy in your pants to see Joe Achmed being grilled simply because of his race rather than have you uncomfy knowing Uncle Sam MIGHT be listening in on you getting your Mom's apple pie recipee over the phone?

Perhaps all the loosey goosey types would feel safe and snug in thier lil homes if the only tools we gave Mr Joe Friday to work with is a simple question.

Sir/Ma'am are you intending harm to this country or it's citizens?

No, well move along then....hmmm wonder if that ticking sound from his vest is noteworthy....welp, can't ask...might hurt his feelbads....

kaboooooommmmmm reap what you have sewn.

Fandros

Thormir

12-21-2005, 04:38 PM

If the president's powers existed in the absence of a statute (i.e. the powers were derived from the Constitution), a statute cannot take those powers away. In other words, Congress cannot strip a Constitutional power such as the power to pardon or make treaties from the President. You're arguing for a gross subversion of the balance of power in the Constitution.
I'm not arguing for anything of the sort; the gross subversion is entirely on the part of the President. The 4th Amendment proscribes unreasonable search and seizure, applied to US Citizens. Truong considered this as applied to wiretapping of a foreign national. FISA estabilshes the boundaries of constitutional authority in the same way that gun control laws establish the boundaries of the 2nd Amendment.
So, would all of you opponents to the Patriot Act be okay with Racial Profiling to nail down possible terrorists? Would it make you happy in your pants to see Joe Achmed being grilled simply because of his race rather than have you
I don't know why you're bringing up racial profiling, Fanny, that's a favored tactic among conservatives. The rest is just senseless non sequitur.

Kelraz Bladesinger

12-21-2005, 05:15 PM

Fandros

12-21-2005, 05:15 PM

Fandros

12-21-2005, 05:16 PM

I just can't believe some people. What does Nazi Germany, Soviet Czechoslovakia, and the United States have in common? Their governments stepped above the law when they felt they could not be challenged. Two of the three got away with it so far.

Uhhhh hyperbole much? There are alot more seperating us from the former two than that mere point bud.

Fandros

Lleauric

12-21-2005, 05:36 PM

News from today:

Sen. John Cornyn: "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."

Sen. Russ Feingold's retort: "Give me liberty or give me death."

Rover

12-21-2005, 06:06 PM

I'm bringing it up because there has to be some tools ya'll agree to. You can't simply continue to obstruct without offering proposals to help.

Easy to point out faults/problems with current ideals. But if you can't suggest alternatives then to what purpose? It's easy to be a Lucy Fussbudget, it's harder to lead and do.

Fandros

Leadership in the US government is not about giving yourself ultimate power. It never has been nor should it ever be.

Has there been such a selling of the idea that the party of Bush/Cheney is interested in downsizing the size of our government only when it comes to regulation of large cororations or aiding those who need it most. Yet when it comes to the daily intrusion in our lives such as phone taps and choosing for us what we watch on TV, listen to on the radio or read in books or what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms the government should expand its size and powers? Can this be an OK thing?

Do you truly believe that it is a good thing that morale values concerning sex are forced on us, yet we are told it is a morally good thing to wage war at our will? That we are told there is nothing wrong with trading the liberties that not only our forefathers in the revolution fought for, but our grandfathers and fathers shed their blood on such places as Chateau Thierry, The Marne, Pearl Harbor, Midway, Bastogne or ththe hills of Korea and the rice paddies of Vietnam. All this is to be ignored to give ONE man the ultimate power to decide the fate of our nation?

Our country has been through many wars and not once has it been required that we give one man the power that Bush claims is needed to win this war.

Bylimet Spiritwalker

12-21-2005, 06:11 PM

Sen. John Cornyn: "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."

Hopefully a prosepective candidate has filed this comment away for the next time Cornyn faces election.

What are the odds Cornyn would be screaming bloody murder to the media if it were his rights being trampled and his phone being illegally tapped.

Fandros

12-21-2005, 06:30 PM

Leadership in the US government is not about giving yourself ultimate power. It never has been nor should it ever be.

Has there been such a selling of the idea that the party of Bush/Cheney is interested in downsizing the size of our government only when it comes to regulation of large cororations or aiding those who need it most. Yet when it comes to the daily intrusion in our lives such as phone taps and choosing for us what we watch on TV, listen to on the radio or read in books or what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms the government should expand its size and powers? Can this be an OK thing?

Do you truly believe that it is a good thing that morale values concerning sex are forced on us, yet we are told it is a morally good thing to wage war at our will? That we are told there is nothing wrong with trading the liberties that not only our forefathers in the revolution fought for, but our grandfathers and fathers shed their blood on such places as Chateau Thierry, The Marne, Pearl Harbor, Midway, Bastogne or ththe hills of Korea and the rice paddies of Vietnam. All this is to be ignored to give ONE man the ultimate power to decide the fate of our nation?

Our country has been through many wars and not once has it been required that we give one man the power that Bush claims is needed to win this war.

Again you, and others, complain, point fingers and kvetch but you offer no tangible clues to how it should be.

Obstruct or get out of the way in 2008!!

Fandros

Rover

12-21-2005, 07:16 PM

Again you, and others, complain, point fingers and kvetch but you offer no tangible clues to how it should be.

Obstruct or get out of the way in 2008!!

Fandros

We've offered many tangible clues. One is, Bush or any president should be required to use due process. Our government did a pretty good job protecting us through WW II and the Cold War without the President having total power and keeping our civil liberties.

The argument that the patriot act is responsible for there not being an attack on US soil in 4 years is just a poor way of trying to sell "shit". If that were to be applied to using due process as the way to do things we could say that there was not an attack on US soil for 7 years while it was in effect.

It seems a forgotten point that there were some BIG clues that Al Qeada was going to attack, the first one being a report titled something like "Al Qeada will attack the US by crashing jets into buildings".

Or the National security advisor that pointed out the threat of Osama and crew.

grixxly

12-21-2005, 07:31 PM

Ibudin

12-22-2005, 08:28 AM

Hey..how about that.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/21/patriot.act/index.html

Thormir

12-22-2005, 08:41 AM

I'm bringing it up because there has to be some tools ya'll agree to. You can't simply continue to obstruct without offering proposals to help.

There are tools in place, Fandros. FISA allows surveillance so long as it comes with a warrant, which may be retroactive. But apparently paperwork is too hard (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900211.html):
"The whole key here is agility," [former NSA director General Michael Hayden] said at a White House briefing before Bush's news conference. According to Hayden, most warrantless surveillance conducted under Bush's authorization lasts just days or weeks, and requires only the approval of a shift supervisor. Hayden said getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it "involves marshaling arguments" and "looping paperwork around."
Insisting that we operate under the law is not obstruction, Fanny.

Rover

12-22-2005, 09:03 AM

Hey..how about that.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/21/patriot.act/index.html

I think that is a good thing. At the very least it should be open to debate not just arbitrarily passed or removed.

Furtivus

12-22-2005, 09:35 AM

FISA estabilshes the boundaries of constitutional authority in the same way that gun control laws establish the boundaries of the 2nd Amendment.

Wrong. You cannot compare the two since we're talking about an area of Presidential power.

"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power."

FISA cannot encroach on the President's constitutional power (assuming it exists which everyone before Bush including the courts assumed it did). It cannot "establish boundaries of constitutional authority."

Our government did a pretty good job protecting us through WW II and the Cold War without the President having total power and keeping our civil liberties.

Yea, the Japanese Americans during WW2 were very pleased with the way our government kept our civil liberties. Pretty good job indeed. Is history no longer taught?

Furtivus

12-22-2005, 09:40 AM

SINCE WE ARE SO VULNERABLE NO MATTER WHAT DEFENSE SYSTEM WE PUT INTO PLACE

You wonder why most Americans are concerned about the Democratic party's ability to protect us? Look no further than the quote above.

Fandros

12-22-2005, 10:00 AM

You have to ignore him Furt. For the most part Grxx acts as tho he gets his info directly from his magic 8 ball. Noone, including his side of the arguement, takes him serious.

The Patriot act as protected us against more than you can dream of. It just needs to be made public imho. Does it need to be revamped and perhaps better guidelines put in place? Yes , I would feel good about that. But should it be allowed to expire on the 31st of this month and leave us vulnerable?

no, and it's lunacy to even suggest such.

Fandros

Fandros

12-22-2005, 10:07 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/21/patriot.act/index.html

/cheer

Fandros

Thormir

12-22-2005, 10:27 AM

Wrong. You cannot compare the two since we're talking about an area of Presidential power.

"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power."

FISA cannot encroach on the President's constitutional power (assuming it exists which everyone before Bush including the courts assumed it did). It cannot "establish boundaries of constitutional authority."

Look at the sentence before what you quoted: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 (http://forums.ayonae.ro/l%2026) It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it." The courts can determine such boundaries. Otherwise, we wouldn't even need a Patriot Act. The President could simply do as he wants (which, effectively, is what he's doing now).

Those "liberal whackadoo" judges of the FISA court seem to agree, and are none too pleased (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326.html) by the administration's actions.

Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.

...
Two intelligence sources familiar with the plan said Kollar-Kotelly expects top-ranking officials from the National Security Agency and the Justice Department to outline the classified program to the members.

The judges could, depending on their level of satisfaction with the answers, demand that the Justice Department produce proof that previous wiretaps were not tainted, according to government officials knowledgeable about the FISA court. Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court.
In related news, the 4th Circuit Court, which originally upheld Bush's request to be able to indefinitely hold without charge US citizens declared "enemy combatants," isn't amused (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/padilla_v_hanft_122105.pdf) by Gonzales' "emergency request" to move Jose Padilla into the civilian court system before the SCOTUS can hear the case.
The government has held Padilla militarily for three and a half years, steadfastly maintaining that it was imperative in the interest of national security that he be so held. However, a short time after our decision issued on the government’s representation that Padilla’s military custody was indeed necessary in the interest of national security, the government determined that it was no longer necessary that Padilla be held militarily.

....In a plea that was notable given that the government had held Padilla militarily for three and a half years and that the Supreme Court was expected within only days either to deny certiorari or to assume jurisdiction over the case for eventual disposition on the merits, the government urged that we act as expeditiously as possible to authorize the transfer [to a civilian court]. The government styled its motion as an “emergency application,” but it provided no explanation as to what comprised the asserted exigency.
And, in moving Padilla to the civilian courts, they don't plan to charge him with being a dirty bomber or plotting to blow up buildings, but rather with some low level conspiracy charges. This after over 3 years of solitary incarceration. The 4th Circuit was also unhappy that the government was providing information to the media that it did not provide to the court.

All of this suggests that the administration screwed up, knows they screwed up, and wanted the case declared moot by SCOTUS by moving Padilla to the civilian system. Padilla may be a criminal, or may have wanted to be a criminal (though evidence suggests he couldn't build a mousetrap, much less a "dirty bomb"), but instead he's become a test case for when due process is removed from the equation.

Rover

12-22-2005, 10:49 AM

Yea, the Japanese Americans during WW2 were very pleased with the way our government kept our civil liberties. Pretty good job indeed. Is history no longer taught?

Yes, unfortunately there was racial profiling of the Japanese Americans, truly the result of a knee jerk reaction by our government. It has been proven that this did absolutely nothing to make us safer. The patriot act and the warrantless wiretaps are also deemed by some to be the same type of knee jerk reaction by our government and by most accounts has not made us any safer.

Taleren Bloodsong

12-22-2005, 11:10 AM

You wonder why most Americans are concerned about the Democratic party's ability to protect us? Look no further than the quote above.

Remember, he's a Democrate, not a Democrat. I'm a registered democrat, but 99% of the slush that Grixxly spews makes my stomach churn.

grixxly

12-22-2005, 11:28 AM

[/QUOTE]The Patriot act has protected us against more than you can dream of. It just needs to be made public imho.[/QUOTE]

With all of today's media outlets and watchgroups that exist, any terrorist plan that is foiled would have made world news. Sorry your lame attempt to defend the issue is very weak.

[/QUOTE]Does it need to be revamped and perhaps better guidelines put in place? Yes , I would feel good about that. But should it be allowed to expire on the 31st of this month and leave us vulnerable?

no, and it's lunacy to even suggest such.

Fandros[/QUOTE]

On one hand your saying we need better guidelines wich ultimately means that we are currently vulnerable with the PA in place and then on the other hand your saying we would will still be vulnerable without the PA. Are you really that stupid? You are agreeing with me but refusing to understand that the end result is the same and since the end result means vulnerablity why anact the PA? We all surrender our rights as Americans in exchange for what? Don't answer that with better protection because that's a lie since you just admitted that we are vulnerable with or without the PA.

Taleren Bloodsong

12-22-2005, 11:36 AM

Because he's saying better guidelines need to be put in place doesn't mean he's agreeing with you that it leaves us just as vulnerable to terrorism. I would venture he's stating that he thinks we need better guidelines to specifically ensure we don't give up more of our civil liberties than necessary or that people can't abuse the power as easily as is granted right now.

grixxly

12-22-2005, 11:38 AM

Remember, he's a Democrate, not a Democrat. I'm a registered democrat, but 99% of the slush that Grixxly spews makes my stomach churn.

What the hell are you talking about? Have some balls and tell me what you disagree with. I haven't seen one attempt to debate me here with some form of intelligence. What makes your stomach churn that I posted? Could it be the fact that I made fandros look stupid, that you disagree with? I know how strongly you feel for one another but say something intelligent for a change.

grixxly

12-22-2005, 11:46 AM

Fandros

12-22-2005, 11:55 AM

Grxx, you make noone look stupid. When your own side of the debate cringes at each of your posts you need look no further than the person typing on your own keyboard to find a questionable intelligence.

I'm not agreeing with you in regards to the PA. Talespinner is correct, I think the PA needs refined inorder to protect civil liberties as well as protect our safety.

This happened last night, the Senate worked over several issues and I think the end result is a better document.

As for you blathering about the media would cover any halted terrorist activities...

Jane you ignorant slut, you couldn't be further wrong. One one count we have a media that doesn't want to positive spin anything that's going on for the powers that be. On the other hand the administration is keeping a lid on them for reasons I don't understand. Personally I'd be hailing every cell destroyed, every life saved and every terrorist locked up. I'm stymied.

But keep touting yourself as some sort of savant Grxx. I'm sure you'll find many supporters....in the McDonald land ball bin.

Fandros

Taleren Bloodsong

12-22-2005, 12:14 PM

I know how strongly you feel for one another

Apparently you don't. Sure, off these boards (be it in WoW or in EQ) I'm friends with Fanny. On these boards, our opinions are usually polar opposites.

1) No I don't like the powers that the Patriot Act currently gives the people in power. I don't like my civil liberties being trampled on, or even the guise that they may be trampled upon if someone so desires.

2) I DO think some of the provisions in the Patriot Act are necessary, I just think the Act is too far reaching atm. Here's one point I'm somewhat in agreeance with Fandros.

3) I don't approve the job GW has done as a whole while he's been president, so we can agree on that point. Do I think he deserves to be impeached? No I don't. Do I feel like I was misled by this administration with regards to the war with Iraq? Yes. Do I think GW was misled by his advisors to get us to reach this point? Yes I do. I don't think GW is an inherantly evil man like you do Grix, I do think he's gotten some bad advice and followed it blindly. That doesn't make him subject to impeachment for taking bad advice.

4) Do I think Clinton should have been impeached? No. I would venture to say just about every guy that's been caught with his pants down so to speak has tried to lie his way out of it. I personally think that lying about getting a blowjob is very minor, yes yes I know it was to a court, but the ways the information was attained wasn't any more legal than him lying too the court. It's been documented that just about every POTHUS has cheated on their wife, Clinton happens to be one of the few that got caught while in office, and was the only one that got caught with the media frenzy we have today.

5) Do I think the war in Iraq is a just war? No, I think all the initial reasons we were fed for the war have now been proven false, baseless, or wrong (other than removing a vile Dictator). The issue now lies in where to go from here. We simply can't pull out now, if we do, we'll have to go back in a few years to clean up the mess caused by civil war. I also feel if we were to leave now, the terrorists from there would try to follow us back here. Is staying the course the wise thing to do NOW? Yes. Hindsight is always 20/20, there are always more efficient ways to do things. Now we have to move forward and make sure the Iraqis are able to self govern, so that we can leave that country and never go back.

There, in relatively short terms you know how I feel about most of the topics that are debated on this board. It aren't your opinions that always make my stomach churn Grixxly, because some we do share. It's the manner in which you speak. It's the constant effort to try to pick a fight like a playground bully. There are many posts when Fandros doesn't take the high road either, and those I am equally disgusted by. By in large though, that's not the huge portion of his posts unlike you.

grixxly

12-22-2005, 12:18 PM

=one count we have a media that doesn't want to positive spin anything that's going on for the powers that be. On the other hand the administration is keeping a lid on them for reasons I don't understand. Personally I'd be hailing every cell destroyed, every life saved and every terrorist locked up. I'm stymied.

Fandros

Your case is right on target! Bush wants to keep his approval ratings as low as possible so he and his adminastration are putting a lid on all these so called foiled plots of terror. It amazes me how successful the shrub is at doing so...I mean it must be a tremendous undertaking to hide all the family members and attorneys who are representing all these foiled plot suspects from talking to the media. How does Bush do it? How does the shrub keep such a tight lid on all the thousands if not millions of people connected to foiled plots of terror in this country? The sad fact of the matter is he doesn't because this government has prevented jack squat since 9/11 that noone of us haven't heard about. Your selective wishful thought process limits you to this imaginary vision of conspiracy.

Fandros

12-22-2005, 12:22 PM

Rover

12-22-2005, 01:10 PM

Haven't prevented jacksquat since 9/11 eh...

Wow, how many attacks have their been on our soil? Think they wouldn't have hit us if they weren't stopped? They've hit all their other foes and they'd hit us if they could've.

I can't lowbrow this logic for you anymore than I have Grxx. Perhaps you should relegate your opinions to shallower water.

Fandros

Do you really think that we can attribute the lack of an attack on US soil to the patriot act? I'm not sure that can be answered.

Lets go back to the first known attack by Al Qeada on US soil, the '93 WTC bombing. When this occured it was made out by both the government and the media as a failed attack. Almost as if it was done by "The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight" but in reality, if you think about it the attack provided a wealth of information to Al Qeada.

Remember, by training Bin Laden is a construction engineer. The first attack showed them that a bomb placed in the basement of the building, would at best cause minimal damage as the support structure at or below ground level was extremely strong. Bin Ladens construction knowledge came into play with the idea that by crashing the planes into the mid upper floors would essentially cause the collapse, much in the way it happened.

Remember, Bin Laden claims that the planning for the 2nd attack started almost immediately after the first one. A planning phase that took approx 8 years before it was actually implemented.

What should we learn from this: Al Qeada is a very patient enemy and will take years if necessary to plan an attack so it has a maximum effect.

We can lay the blame for the success of Al Qeada's 2nd attack on the following; The Clinton administration, the Media (Both liberal and conservative) and the Bush administration.

So in retrospect: Has the patriot act been the reason for the lack of another attack? No

Will it be the reason or can it be shown that it was the reason for no attack? Maybe...unfortunately...time will tell.

Thormir

12-22-2005, 01:13 PM

I should have included in my previous post that Truong dealt with a foreign national, not with domestic surveillance.

Furtivus

12-22-2005, 01:43 PM

The courts can determine such boundaries.

Of course courts can determine those boundaries. All of the courts that have judged this boundary have either issued a non-ruling (in the case of the SC) or ruled that it is constitutional.

You're arguing, however, that Congress set the boundary in FISA. Congress cannot. An analogous situation would be if Congress passed a law establishing a court to review and approve Presidential pardons. The President could go along with the court, but doesn't have to. The President could ignore the court completely and issue pardons.

Is the President above the law? Certain laws yes. If Congress passes a law that takes constitutional powers away from the Executive branch, then yes the President is above the law.

Furtivus

12-22-2005, 02:00 PM

I should have included in my previous post that Truong dealt with a foreign national, not with domestic surveillance.

You don't need to include that because no one is talking about purely domestic surveillance. That issue was decided in 1972

(http://www.justia.us/us/407/297/case.html)

Up until 1972, all Presidents assumed they had the constitutional power to issue wiretaps without court approval in the interest of national security.

"Successive Presidents for more than one-quarter of a century have authorized such surveillance in varying degrees,[Footnote 1 (http://www.justia.us/us/407/297/case.html#F1)] without guidance from the Congress or a definitive decision of this Court. This case brings the issue here for the first time. Its resolution is a matter of national concern, requiring sensitivity both to the Government's right to protect itself from unlawful subversion and attack and to the citizen's right to be secure in his privacy against unreasonable Government intrusion."

The 1972 decision ruled it was not a constitutional power with respect to purely domestic surveillance. The Court, however, very explicitly declined to apply the decision to the type of surveillance at issue today.

"Further, the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country."

"We emphasize, before concluding this opinion, the scope of our decision. As stated at the outset, this case involves only the domestic aspects of national security. We have not addressed, and express no opinion as to the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents."

Other Circuit Courts have either declined to rule on the type of surveillance conducted by Bush's administration or have stated that it is a constitutional exercise of a President's power. Again, FISA is irrelevant to this determination.

PheloniusRM

12-22-2005, 02:36 PM

Haven't prevented jacksquat since 9/11 eh...

Wow, how many attacks have their been on our soil? Think they wouldn't have hit us if they weren't stopped? They've hit all their other foes and they'd hit us if they could've.

Rooster taking credit for the sun rising?

On a side note; it amazes me how many "card carrying repulicans" think that all of the negative things that Bush has done to the economy, civil liberties, wages, etc. don't effect them. As if they can just show thier "Bush bootlicker" card and they won't get strip searched at the train station, or they get gas a half price, or they won't have fbi visit them when they want to read a book about Islam to become more intelligent. It is an interesting phenomenon how people think that by supporting the republicans they become a "rich guy". Only 10% of the country has a household income above 100k so if 50% of the country is republican, then 40% of them are wannabe rich guys.

Furtivus

12-22-2005, 02:53 PM

how people think that by supporting the republicans they become a "rich guy".

I have never heard any Republican state a belief that mere support of a political party will lead to riches. Do you have the study to support your bold observation?

BTW, I would wager a hell of a lot more than 40% of the country are "wannabe rich [people]". Who doesn't want to be rich?

Taleren Bloodsong

12-22-2005, 03:02 PM

I want to be rich!! Perhaps we should add a poll.

Sanchek

12-22-2005, 03:18 PM

On a side note; it amazes me how many "card carrying repulicans" think that all of the negative things that Bush has done to the economy, civil liberties, wages, etc. don't effect them. As if they can just show thier "Bush bootlicker" card and they won't get strip searched at the train station, or they get gas a half price, or they won't have fbi visit them when they want to read a book about Islam to become more intelligent. It is an interesting phenomenon how people think that by supporting the republicans they become a "rich guy". Only 10% of the country has a household income above 100k so if 50% of the country is republican, then 40% of them are wannabe rich guys.
I highly doubt that 100% of the people who voted for Bush did so because they hoped he would make them rich.

That said, having conservative views on some issues has definitely ingratiated me with the good 'ol boys club here in Atlanta and advanced my career as much as anything else has. My beliefs were such before I ever realized their monetary value and aren't a product of that (like you suggest), but they sure haven't hurt my bottom line.

Fandros

12-22-2005, 03:25 PM

Pure logic Phel, simple and pure logic.

Since there have been no attacks on US soil one could make the arguement that it is indeed at least partially due to the Patriot Act.

You cannot, however make the claim that the PA has done nothing to protect us. That would be pure conjecture on your part.

Fandros

Fandros

12-22-2005, 03:30 PM

Rooster taking credit for the sun rising?

On a side note; it amazes me how many "card carrying repulicans" think that all of the negative things that Bush has done to the economy, civil liberties, wages, etc. don't effect them. As if they can just show thier "Bush bootlicker" card and they won't get strip searched at the train station, or they get gas a half price, or they won't have fbi visit them when they want to read a book about Islam to become more intelligent. It is an interesting phenomenon how people think that by supporting the republicans they become a "rich guy". Only 10% of the country has a household income above 100k so if 50% of the country is republican, then 40% of them are wannabe rich guys.

Interesting post all the way around. Hints at a core lack of knowledge of life in the good US of A.

What's so horrible about the economy? Hmmmm nope haven't been strip searched either or worried about if the govt is checking my reading list. Top is off with my wages/earning power going up and you just whiffed at all 3 tosses.

/wink and I'm far from a card carrying Republican and ouch I'm surely not rich.

Part of the problem with the left these days is this "we are all victims" mentality. Wake up and hear the rooster, life isn't going down the crappah!

Fandros

Thormir

12-22-2005, 03:55 PM

Furtivus, I see what you're getting at, but I think your analogy fails. Presidential pardons are very explicitly defined in Article II. The President "he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." There's no room for question there.

But there's plenty of room for question when conflating an authorization for military force (AUMF) with permission to circumvent FISA, as intelligence gathering isn't referenced in the Constitution with the same specificity of pardons. Thus, legislation could not -- as you note -- serve as anything but a guideline when it comes to pardons, but the law seems on much firmer footing with respect to adjudicating wiretaps in terms of the 4th Amendment, especially when US citizens are involved.

I have the inclination but not the time to dig into case law on this (not my area of expertise, either). I'll close by noting again that Bush's defense is that Congress granted him the authority to circumvent FISA in approving the AUMF, but that's clearly untrue. Republican Senators Graham and Specter certainly weren't convinced. I'll close with Bruce Fein, a former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration, noting (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/bfein.htm)
Mr. Bush's defense generally echoed previous outlandish assertions that the commander in chief enjoys inherent constitutional power to ignore customary congressional, judicial or public checks on executive tyranny under the banner of defeating international terrorism, for example, defying treaty or statutory prohibitions on torture or indefinitely detaining United States citizens as illegal combatants on the president's say-so. President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms.
Both Fein and Norm Onstein of the American Enterprise Institute appeared on The Diane Rehm show and stated:
QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?

BRUCE FEIN: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.

NORM ORNSTEIN: I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.
Perhaps I'm wrong, they're wrong, the FISA judges are wrong and all others critical of this policy. But looking at it over the past few days, while I wouldn't necessarily call for impeachment, it seems serious and worthy of congressional probe.

Won't be around much the next few days, so Merry Xmas/Happy Holidays/kiss my ass O'Reilly to you all.

grixxly

12-22-2005, 03:57 PM

Rooster taking credit for the sun rising?

and June said "Ward, I think you're being a little tough on the Beaver"!!

Thormir

12-22-2005, 04:03 PM

Part of the problem with the left these days is this "we are all victims" mentality.
Quick response before I jet. This is hardly restricted to the left. Don't forget the "judicial war on people of faith," the "war on Christmas," and all that rot from the Justice Sunday kook crowd. People like to be victims or something. Cheers,
Thor, out.

PheloniusRM

12-22-2005, 04:12 PM

"Rich guy" mentality. Along the lines of republican=white collar, democrat=blue collar stereotyping. I live in southern California and much like everyone else with some exceptions, I speak only of the environment around me. Wonderful logic Fandros, and with your ever so simplistic fomulae I could say that since you are not black either, blacks must not exist.

Bylimet Spiritwalker

12-22-2005, 04:28 PM

Since there have been no attacks on US soil one could make the arguement that it is indeed at least partially due to the Patriot Act.

On the other hand, if the last time Grixx got laid was the night before the attacks on 9/11, I guess he could claim his celibacy has prevented subsequent attacks.........

...the entire argument of the PA preventing attacks up until now is mere mental masturbation, as far as I see it; it cannot be proven, or rather has not been proven, to date. I agree with Fanny regarding the need for some aspects, but also for refinement.

And, it was Bush & Co. that were going to allow the PA to expire on 12/31, in his typical foot stomping, childish fashion of wanting his way or nothing.
The folks in Congress wanted an extension so it could be retooled, and Bush wanted renewal for four years as it was.

The Petulant Pres was solely responsible for that bit of drama.

Fandros

12-22-2005, 05:14 PM

/chuckle Phel, interesting nonlogic you have flowing there. Much makes sense now.

I'm not sure Byl, see there were alot of hand wrangling prior to get changes to the PA before the vote last week. Then when the vote came up Dems decided they wanted even more. I think it was more of a grandstanding to set it up for a min extension set to expire right before 2006 elections.

Fandros

Fandros

12-22-2005, 05:18 PM

Ahhhhh House rejected the 6 month extension. Guess they wanted only a 1 month extension.

Fandros

Bylimet Spiritwalker

12-22-2005, 05:41 PM

Time to exercise term limits and start voting out incumbents, if this is the best they can do to serve their country and constituents.

Furtivus

12-22-2005, 06:34 PM

Thormir, I highly suggest you read the case I linked to.

Up until that decision in 1972, Presidents understood wiretapping without a court order in defense of the nation to be an inherent Constitutional authority. It is not as explicit as the pardon power, but was a power generally believed to exist nonetheless. The SC took a look at it and said the power does not exist regarding domestic surveillance but we will not decide whether it exists for the foreign equivalent. So, Presidents after 1972 continued to assume the power existed.

I do not believe anyone declared the domestic wiretapping acts prior to the SC's decision to be impeachable offenses any more than exercise of a pardon could be an impeachable offense.

Sure a question exists regarding foreign surveillance as it did for the domestic surveillance. But, the only body that can legitimately answer that question is the SC and so far it has refused to do so. Circuit courts that have looked at the question have assumed it exists deferring to the Presidential belief that it did. Congress cannot answer the question no matter how much chest beating they want to do.

Lleauric

12-22-2005, 07:45 PM

So the basic question becomes does the Presidents unwritten privilage to monitor foreign calls override the set in stone protections of US Citzens to not have conversations recorded by the govt without Judical approval.

I think clearly we can answer that, No, it does not.

As far as addressing wether or not it is impeachable offense. That is a simple.
Was he required by law to get FISA permission to tap the conversations of a US Citizen?
Yes... he was
Did he?
No...
He authorized an illegal search. I really dont see a way around that.

What Im curious about it is... why didnt he?
FISA is widely acknowledged to be as big a rubber stamp as their is. The standard is amazingly low and great pains were taken to make these people extremely accessable.

Why did Bush circumvent FISA?

Rover

12-22-2005, 08:03 PM

Why did Bush circumvent FISA?

Because by circumventing FISA he could have full control over the records of who was monitored thereby leaving no traceable trail as to who was being monitored?

Bylimet Spiritwalker

12-22-2005, 09:26 PM

Because by circumventing FISA he could have full control over the records of who was monitored thereby leaving no traceable trail as to who was being monitored?

Control is a major issue with the Bush/Cheney cartel, as was evidenced by the struggle for the minutes of meetings with the oil execs that Cheney met with when formulating energy policy. By minimizing the number of people involved in any processes the dynamic duo are pursuing, they maximize the degree of control and power they can exert over said process.

Lleauric

12-22-2005, 09:40 PM

Maybe we can just have everyone who agrees with Bush, sign this:

The Loyal Citizen's Contract With the American Government

"I (the undersigned) believe President George W. Bush when he says that the United States of America is fighting a 'new kind of enemy' that requires 'new thinking' about how to wage war. Therefore, as a loyal citizen of President Bush's United States, my signature below indicates my agreement to the following:

"1. I believe wholeheartedly in the Patriot Act as initially passed by Congress in 2001, as well as the provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act. Therefore, I grant the FBI access to:

"a. my library records, so it may determine if I am reading material that might designate me an enemy of the nation;

"b. my financial records, including credit reports, so it may determine if I am contributing monetarily to any governmentally proscribed activities or organizations;

"c. my medical records, so it may determine if my prescriptions, injuries, or other conditions are indicative of terrorist activity on my part;

"d. any and all other personal records including, but not limited to, my store purchases, my school records, my web browsing history, and anything else determined as a 'tangible thing' necessary to engage in a secret investigation of me.

"I agree that I do not need to be notified if my records have come under scrutiny by the FBI, and, furthermore, I agree that no warrant is needed for the FBI to engage in this examination of my personal records. Additionally, I agree that the FBI should be allowed to monitor any groups it believes may be linked to what it determines to be terrorist activity.

"2. I believe that the President of the United States has the power to mitigate any and all laws passed by the Congress and that he has such power granted to him by his status as Commander-in-Chief in the Constitution as well as the 2001 Authorization of Military Force, passed by the Congress, which states that the President can use 'all necessary and appropriate force' in prosecution of the war. Therefore, I grant the United States government the following powers:

"a. that the National Security Agency, under the direction of the President, may tap my phone lines and intercept my e-mail without warrant or FISA oversight;

"b. that the President may hold me or other detainees without access to the legal system for a period of time determined by the President or his agents;

"c. that the President may authorize physical force against me or other individual detainees in order to gain intelligence and that he may define whether such physical force may be called 'torture':

"d. that the President may set aside any and all laws he sees as hindering the gathering of intelligence and prevention of terrorist acts for a period as time determined by the President, including, but not limited to, rights to political protest.

"I agree that the Judicial and Legislative branch should be allowed no oversight of these activities, and that such oversight merely emboldens the terrorists. I also agree that virtually all of these activities may be conducted in complete secrecy and that revelation of these activities amount to treasonous behavior on the part of those who reveal these activities to the press and the citizenry.

"3. Finally, this document is my statement that I believe the President of the United States and the entire executive branch, as well as all departments and agencies involved, as well as all of its personnel, will treat these powers I have granted them with utmost respect. I believe that these powers will not be abused, nor will any of the information I have given them permission to examine be misinterpreted. However, should such abuse or misinterpretation occur, I agree that such actions are mere errors and no one should be subject to investigation, arrest, or employment action as a result.

"My consent freely given,
"(Your signature)"

Furtivus

12-23-2005, 08:32 AM

You're asking the wrong question Lleauric. The question is, does the President's constitutional powers as commander in chief (which have been broadly interpreted by the SC) allow the executive branch to wiretap foreign powers and agents without a court warrant in the interest of national security even though those wiretaps involve a domestic party.

The circuit courts have clearly said that it is constitutional. The SC implicitly said it was constitutional by not ruling on it.

Your ignorance of the Constitution is embarassing. Congress cannot pass a law and make illegal and act allowed under the Constitution. Using the same analogy I made before, Congress cannot make pardons illegal. It's a violation of separation of powers. Similarly, assuming as all the circuit courts have done (and the SC implicitly authorized), wiretaps of foreign powers and agents in the interest of national security is constitutional , FISA cannot make it illegal.

Lleauric

12-23-2005, 11:53 AM

You are the one who is embarrasing yourself.

The only thing upheld is that the President can wiretap people who are not US citizens.

Congress cannot pass a law and make illegal and act allowed under the Constitution
Where did the constitution say it was legal to wiretap US citizens w/o judical oversight IN ANY CASE? By not ruling on it? Bullshit, that is beyond weak reasoning to the point of being a blatent apologist.
The SC not ruling on it left the door open for it to be defined by legislature, which it did, implicitly.
And FISA IS DEFINITLY constitutionally valid and has been upheld twice
Once in United States v. Duggan, The Court implicitly stated that there was A CLEAR DIFFERENCE in the treatment of US Citizens and foreigners.
And again in United States v. Nicholson where the court stated concisely that FISA Does NOT violate Seperation of Powers.
.. Hear that whimper? That was your point dying.

You cannot backdoor into warrentless searches by having one end foreign. US Citizens are protected. PERIOD. There is no way around that.

Any spying on US Citizens without FISA oversight/warrents is illegal... period. And if this debate is so righteous..
WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HAVING IT AFTER BUSH WAS CAUGHT DOING IT?
Why did he sign the bills recognizing FISA as the authority?
Title II of the Patriot Act reorganizes and modifies FISA, BUT STILL RECOGNIZES ITS VALIDITY.
At the very least, Bush is in effect, lying. And about something more important that a blowjob.
He signed a bill into law that he, if he is to be believed now, had no intention of following a large portion of.

There is no ability that allows one branch to usurp the system of checks and balances.

Osgiliath666

12-23-2005, 01:03 PM

"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

Fandros

12-23-2005, 01:11 PM

Read the article, would appear it's pretty damning to the noise being brought to bear against Bush's use of said powers.

But then again, most of the attacks by Daschle and crew are malicious and more of a "Do as I say, not as I have done..again and again and again"

Fandros

Osgiliath666

12-23-2005, 01:17 PM

That's why I posted the link to it as well.=)

Lleauric

12-23-2005, 01:32 PM

Learn the history of that.

Yes Clinton tried to get that power.
And he was rebuffed, as he should have been.
They then Abandoned that course and did things through FISA.

Its different from this Case in that Bush decided he could ignore law and do what he wanted anyway.

See.. no matter if you like a law from a "goddamn piece of paper" or not.. you still have to follow it.

Bylimet Spiritwalker

12-23-2005, 04:21 PM

The fact remains that Bush told the American people in April that wiretaps required court approval and that was the only way they could be done, while in full knowledge that he had authorized NSA wiretaps without court approval.

He blatantly lied to the American people.

It would have been very easy for him to have his chief of staff pass on the same argunments and data that are being used now in this thread, or he could have had AG Gonzalez offer case law and a justice department position. There were options available to him, and he chose to lie. He could just as easily have said he was not going to discuss any options he considered available in the fight against terrorists. He chose to lie.

I really don't give a damn if someone considers it legal or not. He lied. He did not have to, but he chose to lie to the American people.

Furtivus

12-23-2005, 04:57 PM

Lleauric simply has no comprehension of the Constitution in this area Osgiliath. I'll try one more time though I imagine it futile. The SC's declining to rule on the matter implicitly admitted the President's Constitution power existed. The SC in dicta admitted the President had such power and declined to rule it unconstitutional. It did not implicitly mean Congress could take away that power.

Not only did the SC decision imply the power existed, several circuit courts to look at the matter acknowledge the power exists.

No one has argued FISA is unconstitutional. FISA can exist along with the President's Constitutional power. Quit throwing up a strawman argument. It's pitiful.

Lleauric

12-23-2005, 08:34 PM

Is my knowledge about constitutional law great? Nope.. but it was enough to dismantle your weak arguement pretty throughly.

Whats that tell you?

The Supreme Court not ruling on the topic does not consitute dicta. If a judge editorialized and implicitly stated (That means THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO FUCKING SAY IT), which they did not, even then it would carry very little weight as dicta, by nature is an opinion tangetory to the main case, but given without research or much thought.

Damn.. if you want to pretend to be a legal scholar.. at least learn what dicta means.

How can FISA and unsupervised wiretaps by the executive branch co-exist when the purpose of FISA is judical oversight over the executive branch. If the President, and by extension, the NSA, DoDefense, DoJ, DoTreas or any other subordinate agency can bypass it, what purpose does it serve?

DiscW

12-24-2005, 07:07 AM

Lying about BJ's or lying about wire taps?

That horrible, horrible clinton.

Starrla

12-25-2005, 05:27 PM

DiscW....LOL

Thormir

12-26-2005, 12:31 PM

Just a quick note while I'm dropping by. Furtivus seems to be bolstering his support by saying courts have avoided the point except in dicta, which doesn't seem like much support at all. The simple question seems to be, "Have any courts ruled against FISA on grounds that it is unconstitutional?" If not, then the question appears open. Legislation is in place; Bush circumvented that legislation. I think it telling that the administration's primary defense of these actions is not this tortured reading of the Constitution but rather that it was authorized by Congress in the AUMF.

I have to disagree with Fandros that Daschle and his posse (which I guess includes Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee and other liberal rabble rousers) are being mean-spirited. Perhaps Fandros has accustomed himself too much to the "criticism responded to by smear campaign" "debate tactic" of BushCo to see the importance of presidents breaking the law (assuming Bush did so or that it is at least open to question).

Lastly, I'm not sure if this was noted elsewhere on the forums, but the college student allegedly investigated for ordering Mao's little red book has tearfully recanted his story. As the one who first brought this to light, I hope to see him nationally shamed, and I'm glad the tale was untrue.

Now back to my regularly scheduled vacation. Cheers

Elemak the Enchanter

12-27-2005, 05:08 AM

Lying about BJ's or lying about wire taps?

That horrible, horrible clinton.

I dunno maybe it's just, but the thing that boggled my mind, is as the "Most powerful man on Earth" the only broad you can get to blow you is Monica Lewinsky? c'mon even *I* can get better looking chicks than that.

Anterak

12-27-2005, 05:18 AM

Wasn't it his main argument before confessing? :p

Furtivus

12-27-2005, 05:56 PM

"If not, then the question appears open." That's all I've been saying all along. And yes LLeauric, having handled Supreme Court cases, I understand dicta perfectly well. In a separation of powers issue, the Supreme Court acknowledging that every administration assumed it existed coupled with Circuit Courts acknowledging its existence allows a reasonable inference that there is a possibility it is constitutional. Hence, the cries of illegality are unfounded.

PheloniusRM

12-27-2005, 06:02 PM

The thing that scares me most about this is that it is supposed to exclude domestic spying. If the communication is going from a domestic party to an international party then it is domestic spying. It includes the use of internet traffic surveillance. So am I going to get a visit from the FBI because I look at aljazeera as part of my well rounded news sources?

Osgiliath666

12-27-2005, 07:13 PM

Only if they also notice your also a registered Democrat Phel....=) The pain will be short Phel, simply give in to the overlords...=)

Lleauric

12-27-2005, 08:31 PM

A few things.

The first one is.. walk over to any phonebook. Turn to the Attorney section in yellow pages. Its pretty thick... So thick that if Sanchek tried to leap over that part while it was lying on the ground, he would trip on "Estate".
So, see the point is that that problem with America, isnt that we have too many lawyers, the problem is we have too many bad lawyers. Some of these bad lawyers act like a doctor who would make someone sick in order to drum up business. Other lawyers seem to value ideology over simple logic. Most of these type live in DC and probably run a lame political blog of some sort.

But Im not a lawyer.. I have a degree from a pretty decent University in Poly Sci, a masters in History, and a half of a 6th year degree done. Ive taken courses on the Constitution, on theory of Govt, Political Philosophy. Ive read everything from the Federalist Papers, Herodotus, Thucydides, Plutarch, and Aristotle. Read Suetonius, Livy and actually even the Twelve Tables. Ive read Aquinas, and Common Law and the Magna Carta. I think I have a pretty firm grasp on what Montesquieu, Rousseau and Locke had in mind. Likewise with Smith, Hume and to a lesser extent Kant. I think I know what Jefferson would say at a time like this. And I understand the core issues that created this country and its system of laws with some bit of depth I think.

But do I practice law? No.
But I know many people who do/did. So I asked the smartest one I know. Im not sure of your creds Furt. Im sure they are pretty good. But my friend who I work with did her undergrad at UPenn, then she went to law school at UVA, worked as a Prosecutor in VA for a while before going to work at some big law firm up in Boston. Her Husband then hit it big as a "Venture Capitalist" (great story, another time), so she was able to quit a couple years ago and become a teacher. Anyway.. I was talking to her at the Xmas party. ( sidenote: I didnt mention that this was part of some lame internet arguement on a videogame messageboard. So, by your logic, that means I implicitly admitted it. omb!) And she pretty much agreed that your logic is pretty much off base and a "Piss poor interpretation of the law". (not my words)
BTW, As a qualifier, She is a southern (southern VA) girl, and a "moderate" republican.

Take it however you want to.

DiscW

12-28-2005, 03:33 AM

I dunno maybe it's just, but the thing that boggled my mind, is as the "Most powerful man on Earth" the only broad you can get to blow you is Monica Lewinsky? c'mon even *I* can get better looking chicks than that.

You have a very good point..

But look at who he married. He seems to enjoy the 'less fortunate' looking gals.

Thormir

12-28-2005, 11:39 AM

I mentioned earlier in the thread that it's "possible that the NSA has compromised a telecommunications service, such as a satellite phone manufacturer, telecom carrier or a satellite itself." This seems to be the case (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html).
The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said.
As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said.

Roliel

12-28-2005, 11:50 AM

omb!

Omb indeed!

Bylimet Spiritwalker

12-28-2005, 12:25 PM

Anyone have a spare brown shirt?

Elemak the Enchanter

12-28-2005, 01:45 PM

in my closet right next to the tinfoil hat/suit

Esbat

12-28-2005, 02:49 PM

I found this on boing boing the other day, and if true, might relate to this topic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/weekinreview/25bamford.html?ex=1293166800&en=3d09922ebe6b2eac&ei=5090&partner=boingboing&emc=rss

Bylimet Spiritwalker

12-28-2005, 04:06 PM

Interesting, we were being warned by Senator Frank Church about King George and Duke Dick all the way back in 1975.

It seems the apparatus is in place, should the "war on terror" necessitate it, for the Monarchy to continue and ensure none of the serfs can communicate their displeasure without it being made known to the proper authorities.

:rolleyes:

Drizzen

12-28-2005, 05:30 PM

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2005/dec/cartoons/mike12182005.jpg

Starrla

12-29-2005, 03:35 AM

Oh...I Love cartoons! HA!

akipt

12-29-2005, 10:34 AM

I just glanced over the thread since I went away for Christmas. Pretty much the same as I left it: still lots of needless hand-wringing.

I'm not one to care much for polls, but this is notable...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm
December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

Couple of other points... the Mao book kid is a fucking liar, he has now admitted. Another Bushitler claim down the drain.

And the "Constitution is a damned piece of paper" bullshit falls under the same header. L2, you can do better than quoting some website that is a cross between Ann Coulter and the National Enquirer for your intellectual nourishment.

Bylimet Spiritwalker

12-29-2005, 10:38 AM

Your polls show that a majority agree with the NSA eavesdropping on TERRORIST's and/or terror suspects' communications.

The wholesale mining of communications data goes a tad beyond that, it appears.

Furtivus

12-29-2005, 12:07 PM

It's not my logic nor my interpretation. I'm just quoting the courts.

It doesn't take a law degree to figure out the question is open. Your unwillingness to admit that is apparent.

Thormir

12-29-2005, 02:30 PM

I'd be more impressed by the Rasmussen poll if it had asked whether the president order the NSA to eavesdrop without a warrant? Or whether there should be any checks and balances on the president's CIC authority? Is Bush abusing his presidential power? Should the surveillance program be subject to congressional oversight? Is the president violating the law?

I'm a bit suprised that more people didn't answer yes to whether the NSA should be able to monitor terrorist suspect's conversations, but people believe weird things (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-29-2005/0004240417&EDATE=).

Lleauric

12-29-2005, 02:42 PM

I'm just quoting the courts.

How can you quote what was not said? Your assertion seems to be that a President has this power is derived from a courts lack of willingness to address it.

Furtivus

01-05-2006, 06:03 PM

What was not said? Read some of the damn cases and you'll see -- http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf for example. Truong, US v. District Court (Keith). The cases have been provided, read them. In the above linked decision, for example,

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.

I have bolded the quote to make it easier for you to read. Inherent authority means under the Consitution.

Footnote 30 of the above decision:

The Court in a footnote though, cited authority for the view that warrantless surveillance may be constitutional where foreign powers are involved. Keith, 407 U.S. at 322 n.20.

So let's turn to footnote 20 of the Keith decision:

For the view that warrantless surveillance, though impermissible in domestic security cases, may be constitutional where foreign powers are involved, see United States v. Smith, 321 F. Supp. 424, 425-426 (CD Cal. 1971); and American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Electronic Surveillance 120, 121 (Approved Draft 1971, and Feb. 1971 Supp. 11). See also United States v. Clay. 430 F.2d 165 (CA5 1970).

Read those cases and get back to me with your evidence that a President's authorization of warrantless searches of a foreign power we are at war with is blatantly illegal.

PheloniusRM

01-09-2006, 09:27 PM

What's next?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/09/terrorism.mail.reut/index.html

Greystone Thorngage

01-09-2006, 10:18 PM

call me crazy but please define the foreign powers? Also, are these the powers we are at war with? A issue i have is the term we are at war with terrorists or however you want to spin it basically leaves us at war until someone gets bored and stops. Once Iraq is controlled where do we go next, and at what point do we stop.

akipt

01-10-2006, 07:36 AM

call me crazy but please define the foreign powers? Also, are these the powers we are at war with?Congress did in its war resolution it passed shortly after 9/11. And yes, that would be the point of it no?

A issue i have is the term we are at war with terrorists or however you want to spin it basically leaves us at war until someone gets bored and stops. No, I'm fairly certain this war resolution is limited to Al quida and the Taliban. In the past, I believe Congress would pass another resolution accepting a surrender which would remove the president's power to wage war against them. Or perhaps congress would stop funding it all together... that's probably where this one will end up. It's only made difficult this time because our enemy isn't a nation state and all its agents are wearing nicely pressed uniforms.

Once Iraq is controlled where do we go next, and at what point do we stop. It's not tied to the Iraq War resolution, although I'm guessing Iran right now.

Greystone Thorngage

01-10-2006, 07:41 AM

i was baiting for an answer which you provided.

Al quida and the Taliban, which contain religious zealout who are willing to blow themselves up in the name of Allah. You actually think they will surrender on any level?

akipt

01-10-2006, 07:43 AM

Baitng ?

Of course not.

Greystone Thorngage

01-10-2006, 10:00 AM

I posted my original post, to get the someone to say what you in part said, thus baiting.

By your own words "Of course Not", then when will it end? in 2008 when the next president is in office. If we all know for a fact that our "declared enemy" will never surrender and will never negotiate, at what point is enough.

akipt

01-10-2006, 10:06 AM

When they're all dead or no longer refer to themselves as Al quida, or as I said before, Congress stops funding it.

What's your point? Why don't you just say what you want to say and stop wasting our time.

Fandros

01-10-2006, 10:08 AM

Hmmm when is it over. When all nation's that support such groups in any way, shape or form is made to realize the civilized nations will no longer tolerate it. That's when it's over, imho.

When we're able to force the groups that would indulge themselves in such action into only finding training space in hostile lands such as the extreme South pole!!~

Fandros

Greystone Thorngage

01-10-2006, 10:54 AM

My point is we (people of smilar views as mine) are concerned with the actions of a president who is involved in a miltary campaign with no forseeable end, apparently could careless about economic results, and has now proven will cut any corner necessary.

I am going to do some research as i admittedly am not well versed on, but at the moment based on reading the newspapaer and what not...be nice if Bushed focused more domestically, (well except for surveillance).

mirdorr

01-10-2006, 12:32 PM

It's not tied to the Iraq War resolution, although I'm guessing Iran right now

Good lord.

If the troops don't come home after Iraq, the sitting President will face massive problems at home.

Bylimet Spiritwalker

01-10-2006, 12:35 PM

When all nation's that support such groups in any way, shape or form is made to realize the civilized nations will no longer tolerate it.

Would this include major companies of a country such as G.E., Halliburton, etc., doing business with nations that support and sponsor said terrorists? Or will King George continue to tolerate such activities since it is his big-business cronies/supporters who are/were involved (think Duke Dick, for one) and are profitting.

It gets tiring to hear the Bush's, Cheney's, Limbaugh's, Robertson's, Falwell's, Lott's, Delay's, etc., pounding their chests and talking about pariotism and morality when they have demonstrated they will make whatever accomodations necessary to continue the inflow of money, power and prestige they have gotten so accustomed to. And yes, there are plenty of Democrats that fit this as well.

There will always be a lower class in the world's population that is disgusted by the excesses of the more affluent, and they will use whatever tactic suits their need to inspire revolution against that, be it labor movements, religious fanaticism, cult worship, etc. It has always been that way and from all appearances of the world today it is not about to stop any time soon.

When nations start pouring money into those countries for infrastructure and industrialization improvements, rather than bombing what little they have, it will be much harder for terrorists to recruit folks, if they are living better lives and enjoying the fruits of the their work. Rather than our government turning a blind eye to these companies doing business with the Axis of Evil via dummy corporations, they could focus those efforts and put some oversight in at the same time, which would help ensure that factories and roads are being built, rather than nuclear programs.

But hey, I could be wrong....

Fandros

01-10-2006, 12:46 PM

There will always be a lower class in the world's population that is disgusted by the excesses of the more affluent, and they will use whatever tactic suits their need to inspire revolution against that, be it labor movements, religious fanaticism, cult worship, etc. It has always been that way and from all appearances of the world today it is not about to stop any time soon.

Problem with this statement Byl. Is far too many want to romantisize these so called lower class thugs. Why not strap a cape to them and announce their deeds with operetic music? Many of these so called terrorists are more inspired by your choice not to be muslim, not because you have food on the table.....Hell Bin Laden could buy and sell us many times over...hardly lower class eh?

Only one way to deal with them imho. Take away the money and burn out the cancer.

Fandros

Greystone Thorngage

01-10-2006, 01:18 PM

Fandros, your solution still ties back into what he is saying, you have to take the money from Corperations who are banking off the situation.

Moglor

01-10-2006, 01:24 PM

I dont know if anyone else linked this yet but oh well

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-05/a01lo719.htm

Thormir

01-10-2006, 01:42 PM

Under current statutes, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and their agents constitute a foreign power (I don't remember which law I was looking at, maybe FISA, but I wanted to check that specifically). I think it important to note that we are not officially at war, but I'm not sure how that squares with legislation or interpretations of law that come into effect "in times of war." Personally, I think Congress has historically overplayed their military force authorizations since WW2. Either declare war or don't.

There doesn't seem to be any concrete conditions under which we'd no longer be "at war." There will always be those who choose terrorism; it's unlikely we can stamp it out. The Bush administration seems intent on retaining expansive presidential powers so long as we are involved in what may well be an interminable war. Bush seems to hold to the view that he can ignore legislation which, in his view, undermines his ability to combat terrorism in any way he sees fit, judging by his signing statements (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13568438.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation) on such issues as the McCain anti-torture provision of the defense bill. His SCOTUS picks reflect a desire to empower the executive branch (Alito wrote in favor of such signing statements, deciding that the President should have the final word on any legislation).

Perhaps this view of Presidential independence from legislation is why Bush hasn't bothered to veto anything, but either way, we seem to be in a war without end that the executive is using to justify a Constitution bending expansion of power.

Bylimet Spiritwalker

01-10-2006, 02:09 PM

I wonder if he will allow elections in 2008, if we are still "at war".

Greystone Thorngage

01-10-2006, 02:23 PM

Pull a FDR (not saying anything against him), and server longer than the traditional 8 years, due to the condition the country is in.

It scares me cause my motto has been, we jus thave to wait until 2008...thanks for ruining my foundation of sanity Byl.

fildien

01-10-2006, 02:45 PM

I wonder if he will allow elections in 2008, if we are still "at war".

That thought is god damned scary. First the Bill of Rights, then the Constitution, what will be next? Oh I know, let's make a marriage amendment! Leader of the free world indeed, yet we seem to be trailing other "free" countries in civil liberties.

In all seriousness though, what does this government think is going to happen in 2008? We're in a war with no foreseeable end. This reminds me of Regan's "war on drugs". I'm not saying we didn't need to go to Iraq because I think we did, what I dispise is that it seems like we've flown by the seat of our pants with no true plan or timeline and suddenly we're pulling out?

Not to mention we went to liberate a country whose leadership probably employed tactics of spying, eavesdropping, and other such invasions of privacy our government has done/is doing. At what point do you draw the line and realize the ways you're fighting your enemy are making you become your enemy in the eyes of those you're "protecting"?

I'm in favor of finding the enemy and trying to disrupt terrorist activity I am not in favor of broad and general and lose or open-ended restrictions of our government to do so because in my opinion when that happens you've lost.

Thormir

01-11-2006, 09:34 AM

Lawrence Tribe, a Harvard professor of constitutional law, weighs in (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/conyers.pdf) on the NSA surveillance issue.

akipt

01-11-2006, 10:03 AM

The same Lawrence Tribe who was on the Gore 2000 lawyer team? (: I don't even have to install Acrobat to know what he's going to say.

Fandros

01-11-2006, 10:14 AM

Oh c'mon, I'm sure he's weighing in without his own agenda!

Fandros

Thormir

01-11-2006, 10:51 AM

So, neither of you are capable of countering his actual arguments, instead being only capable of insinuating against his character. At least you're consistent.

akipt

01-11-2006, 12:20 PM

So, neither of you are capable of countering his actual arguments, instead being only capable of insinuating against his character.

I did not insinuate anything against his character. An example of that would be me calling him the plagairist that he really is. No, I was simply pointing out that I don't need to read a 6 page pdf to know what he's going to say. You can do better Thormir.

Fandros

01-11-2006, 01:00 PM

Thor tsk tsk. He's well known for his affiliations so any opinion of his is publically biased. I like how ya'll will immediately flake off to your usual bs instead of understand that we have a point as well.

It would be like me asking you to read a long windy paper on the same subject by Rush Limbaugh. You wouldn't bother...

Fandros

Thormir

01-11-2006, 01:19 PM

Actually, I would bother, Fandros, if you stated that there was substance in it rather than Limbaugh's usual bombast. Even if Tribe is biased, that need not have anything to do with his analysis of the case. If the law is in accord with his interpretation, then it doesn't matter what his biases are. I could have just as easily dismissed George Will, Norm Ornstein, Bruce Fein, Lindsay Graham, Arlen Specter and Robert Levy because of their "conservative biases," but then I'd miss out on their criticism of the program.

I could also have dismissed Furtivus for his bias (something I'm sure you'd be "shocked, shocked!" by), but instead I debated him on the issue. So you can either "flake off to your usual bs" ("He's liberal so should be ignored") or you can defend the point you claim to possess by examining the criticism.

Fandros

01-11-2006, 03:26 PM

Greater minds than my own , on the subject of law, are debating it at this very moment. In truth I've read both arguements, away from this board, and find myself thinking Pres Bush is going to walk away clean albiet with a smacked wrist.

Fandros

Greystone Thorngage

01-11-2006, 04:50 PM

..... find myself thinking Pres Bush is going to walk away clean albiet with a smacked wrist....

If that happens, we are even for clinton, and neither of the two could be brought up in arguments due to them canceling each other out...

Fandros

01-11-2006, 05:08 PM

Grey, I think you'll find that I maintain my position that our administration, not just the current one, need seriously cleaning up.

Far too much bullshit imho.

Fandros

Furtivus

01-11-2006, 05:24 PM

What's to challenge? Tribe recognizes that the President's actions very well could be constitutional. Tribe goes on to argue that in his personal opinion it shouldn't be, but Tribe won't be the one making that decision. The Roberts court likely will.

Why would Bush be subject to anything? What did Lincoln receive for his unconstitutional suspension of habeus corpus? What did Truman receive for his unconstitutional seizure of the Steel Mills?

Bylimet Spiritwalker

01-11-2006, 05:41 PM

Grey, I think you'll find that I maintain my position that our administration, not just the current one, need seriously cleaning up.

Far too much bullshit imho.

Fandros

Hehe, one of the more fun debates I have with coworkers and family is how I can possibly take Clinton's side being I am a conservative, and how I can be so against Bush. This is the bliss of being an independent, which I moved to during the Whitewater investigation that kept shifting focus and spending more and more money.

The way government business is conducted has got to be changed, regardless of which party is in power. I do not believe this is a "now we are even" situation, because I believe Bush betrayed his trust with the people on a much greater scale than Clinton, not the least of examples being his campaigning as a "compassionate conservative" but then showing consistent disdain for the lower class and anyone who disagrees with his positions. Born with a silver foot in his mouth, Bush lucked into the White House as a result of his father's connections, some dirty political maneuvers during the initial campaign, and the hunger amongst the people for a change from the scandals that we felt lowered our image with other nations.

I will continue to hope to see some kind of major political house cleaning in our capitol in my lifetime, but I will not hold my breath. As long as the country remains as polarized as it is currently (as evidenced by these threads and the opposing views) political handlers will continue to capitalize on that and use wedge issues to the advantage of their candidates, which usually leaves the nuts and bolts issues like campaign finance reform, tort reform, tax reform (not tax cuts, but reform), etc. lost amid the hot button issues.

I will still back McCain in '08.;)