Librarians turned snitch?

[Moonliner]

Welcome to Bush's America. The NSA can spy on you without a warrent of any kind and just checking out a book from your college library is enough to get the trench coat thugs knocking on your door. I hope all your papers are in order.

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.".... (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm)

[€uroMeinke]

Good thing I own my own copy...

[Betty]

The line has clearly been crossed. When will the police be coming to visit you for the thought crimes you have committed?

Un-f-ing-believable... well not really. With Bush around, it's not even really surprising. Somehow though - I didn't think it would ever really come to this.

Just how long are going to sit around and let this sort of crap happen? Until it actually involves each one of us?

[Not Afraid]

OK. Who is responsible for McCarthy's reincarnation?

[wendybeth]

Gee, I haven't even seen too many conservatives defending Bush on this one- think the Peter Principle may be in effect, finally?

We live in very weird times.

[scaeagles]

I will not defend Bush on this. Not in the least. However, I will also hold dems responsible. I firmly believe the reports of the White House saying that many, many senators were aware of this - I don't know if it was some sort of committee thing or what.

Personally, the timing of the release of this info is politics. Should we be made aware that this is happening? Absolutely. But if the various members of the senate knew it, why is it just coming out now? I would think this info would come out immediately so that it would stop. It was released at this time to overshadow the Iraqi election.

Now, politics is fine. It's a dirty business. But why not get the info out immediately? If it's been going on for years, those who knew and said nothing are complicit.

I also, however, do firmly believe this has been going on much longer. I believe that most, if not every communication over wire via radio communication has been monitored by computer and with certain keywords flagged for review later by analysts.

Does this make it right? No. Is it new? Hardly.

[wendybeth]

So, the Dems- who have virtually no power in this administration- are also at fault on this? I'll wait until the minutes from the meeting are released before I'll blame them for not reporting on it sooner. This could have been released at any time and accusations of political motivation would still happen, so I don't believe timing has jack to do with anything. It also doesn't make what King George has done any more legitimate. Saying the Dems are responsible because they may have known is a bit of a stretch- as we all know, and Bush has said himself, the President has the ultimate authority to do whatever the hell he wants.:rolleyes:

[Alex]

Attempts at monitoring library usage are a very long tradition in this country. While I certainly don't condone it at all, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that whatever triggered this monitoring is a program that started under Bush.

It should, however, be opposed at every opportunity.

[Alex]

As an example of older (and perhaps suspended, though triggering a visit off of communist books seems so 1980s) program, I recommend reading Surveillance in the Stacks (http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/FFG%252f.aspx), which is about the FBI's Library Awareness Program.

Here (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/fbiyourlibrary.htm) is a historical recap of the national security argument for reading habit surveillance. And here (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/fbiyourlibrary.htm) is a page at the American Library Association web site that compiles information on this topic.

I want to be clear that I am not bringing up all these other examples in an effort to dilute this incident but rather to show that it is a long-standing issue and that usually only creeps into the pubilc conscience with specific incidents and then quickly fades.

Here (facetiously) is the horrifying thing for me, that an academic library system as good as Dartmouth's wouldn't have a Chinese copy of the book on site and the student needed to use ILL to get a hold of it.

[Prudence]

Here's the part that worries me: "They brought the book with them, but did not leave it with the student, the professors said." Is that because the student no longer wanted it? Or because Homeland Security agents decided he shouldn't be allowed to use it?

[Alex]

Probably because it was checked out in the agents name.

[scaeagles]

Saying the Dems are responsible because they may have known is a bit of a stretch

I said they share blame, not that they are solely responsible. If they have known, and hold on to the info until a politically opportune time, then of course they are at fault. If they release this specific info immediately after it started (been going on under Bush's orders for over 4 years now, apparently), how could they be accused of timing the release of the info?

I clearly said it is wrong. I clearly said Bush is wrong. I think more are at fault. There is nothing wrong with saying that, nor is it any sort of attempt at justification.

[wendybeth]

If they did know, and had said as much just a few years ago, they'd have been tried for treason and strung up on Capital Hill. Everyone knows questioning Bush's behavior is the same thing as helping the terrorists! It also makes you un-American, Liberally-Elite and un-Rapture worthy.;)

[Gemini Cricket]

This is all very Orwellian. I wonder if they'd bust me for borrowing that book... you know, '1984'
;)

[scaeagles]

If they did know, and had said as much just a few years ago, they'd have been tried for treason and strung up on Capital Hill. Everyone knows questioning Bush's behavior is the same thing as helping the terrorists! It also makes you un-American, Liberally-Elite and un-Rapture worthy.;)

I have no doubt they weighed the political climate at the time. But it wouldn't have been opposition to Bush - it would have been what would be seen as weak on national defense. And they can't afford more of that in their image, whether it is deserved or undeserved.

I find it humorous that I am able to say Bush was wrong, but when trying to bring up the complicit behavior of the opposition party is cast aside as trying to lessen what Bush done. :confused:

[Alex]

Glen Reynolds had an interesting post on his blog today (he's a law professor with some familiarity on these issues), commenting that while he finds the wiretapping odious it may not have been illegal:


It's also worth noting that there are two distinct issues here: Whether the wiretapping (or other interception) was legal, and whether the leak was legal. The leak almost certainly violated the law. The wiretapping is not so clear: Most people fail to appreciate how limited their protection against government surveilliance is, both under statutes and under constitutional law. And that's doubly so where international communications are concerned. (And, except for the small possibility of a constitutional-tort action, the main remedy for unconstitutional surveillance can be found in the exclusionary rule, which only comes into play if someone is prosecuted and the government tries to introduce the surveillance into evidence -- meaning that, as with the exclusionary rule in general, the remedy is worthless if you're never charged with anything, say because you're innocent.) Nor is this a phenomenon that can be blamed on the Patriot Act or the Bush Administration, particularly -- the protections are just quite limited indeed, and prone to technical parsing on such questions as whether the communications were "stored," even momentarily, en route. (For a non-FISA example of that kind of parsing, read the Steve Jackson Games (http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/assorted-short-pieces/sjg-appeal.txt) opinion from 1994, long before the Patriot Act). You may find these legal interpretations offensive -- I do -- but they're the law as it is.
And this observation (http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_12_11_corner-archive.asp#085012) seems to be correct: "What is clear is that this is not some Watergate-type rogue operation, as seemingly hoped by some. In addition to repeated congressional notification, the program has been heavily lawyered by multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and NSA and White House, and is regularly reviewed. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of State Condi Rice have both insisted that program is legal. The fact that some might disagree with whatever legal advice and conclusions the president has received does not make them right or the program illegal. But at this point, we, the public, don't really know what these news stories are really about, do we?"



(I also like it because he raises the same point I already did in the other thread, a lot of what the government can do is only limited if they try to use it in court, if they don't care about going to court there isn't much prohibition.)

[Gemini Cricket]

I find it humorous that I am able to say Bush was wrong, but when trying to bring up the complicit behavior of the opposition party is cast aside as trying to lessen what Bush done. :confused:
If the Dems did say something, it would have been labelled by Bush and his party as the Democrats being 'weak on the war on terror'. Even if they did say something back then, would it have done any good? I'm thinking, no. Bush owns this one. Not anyone else. Bush.

(This post may be monitored by the CIA for quality assurance...)
:D

[Alex]

No, everybody who signed off on it should be held accountable for having done it. The president, the head of NSA, whatever agency people did it and approved of it. Any senators and congresspeople aware of it and not stopping it.

Political cowardice is not a good excuse for signing off on something that is wrong, particularly if it is illegal (I don't know if it is illegal, I do know that I think it was wrong).

[€uroMeinke]

a lot of what the government can do is only limited if they try to use it in court, if they don't care about going to court there isn't much prohibition.)

I'm not sure there's much comfort in this as the current administration has done quite a bit to skirt around "normal" court procedures - declaring citizens enemy combatants, moving suspects to foreign soil, etc.

There's just a sense that there's a whole structure in place that is beyond the rule of law, that normal citizens have to recourse to due process for reasons of national security.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

There's just a sense that there's a whole structure in place that is beyond the rule of law...

That is one of my main gripes as well. Not only could they easily got warrants and actually done this legally, but I believe the law allows them to conduct the surveillance for 72 hours without a search warrant as long as they attempt to obtain one during that time. There were legal ways to accomplish exactly what needed to be done. They chose not to obey those laws.

Nor have they, as of yet, cited exactly where the law allows them to do this. (hint: I don't think it does).

[Alex]

I'm not sure there's much comfort in this

It wasn't meant to provide comfort, I certainily don't take any in it. Just stating the fact that most of the limits of government police activity are imposed through evidentiary exclusion. If evidentiary inclusion is not the goal of a police activity, there aren't actually all that many laws prohibiting activities.

[€uroMeinke]

If evidentiary inclusion is not the goal of a police activity, there aren't actually all that many laws prohibiting activities.

Which is cool in a society which requires trials to bring action on someone - it seems we've been departing from that.

But yeah, realisticly I know "privacy" is an illusion, that sometimes you have to watch what you say less some psycho go off on you. It's just dissappointing when your government becomes that psycho.

[wendybeth]

Scaeagles, I do realise what you are saying, and you are right about responsibility. If any Dems knew about it and didn't say anything, then they should suffer the consequences. We shall have to wait and see. By his own admission, Bush did do this, and he said he would and will do it again, because he's the boss. The buck stops at his desk.

Scaeagles, if you only knew what I thought of most Dems in office- it's not much, I can tell you. I just think even less of the other side.

[€uroMeinke]

I'm curious why this leak is a threat to national security. I would presume any would be terrorist is already paranoid enough to suspect he is being watched.

[scaeagles]

Anyone remember "echelon"? Huge blow up in the year 2000. But wait! Bush wasn't elected until 2000! How can this be blamed on him? We must find a way!

The NSA was not only monitoring and flagging everything from cell phones conversations to items overhead on baby monitors, they were actually sharing the info with Canada, Austrailia, and Great Britain.

Not good. Not good then, not good now. Hardly a new phenomena.

Again, I completely stand by my theory of complicitiness and timing of the release to coincide with the Iraqi election.

[Gemini Cricket]

Again, I completely stand by my theory of complicitiness and timing of the release to coincide with the Iraqi election.
On the other hand, one could say that the timing was in Bush's favor. The NY Times had this info prior to the 2004 elections but did not release it then. I wonder why? They sat on the story for over a year to conduct 'additional reporting'...

[Kevy Baby]

http://home.mindspring.com/~kevin_elder/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/librarian.jpg.w300h423.jpg

[scaeagles]

The more I think/hear/read about this, I suppose one thing amazes me more than anything else - that this is being portrayed as something new. Echelon and Carnivore were programs started in the 90s. I have no doubt that there were programs prior to those that did similar things.

Go ahead an object to the programs. But don't act like it is something new and shocking and unique to the current administration.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Ah, but there is a major difference.

Echelon was used to monitor other countries, not US citizens. Carnivore required a court order before it could be used to monitor an individual. So, in actuality, domestic wiretaps on US citizens without a court order is both shocking and unique.

Carnivore (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/carnivore3.htm)

[scaeagles]

Ah, but there is a major difference.

Echelon was used to monitor other countries, not US citizens.

Not based on what I've read. From a 60 minutes transcript -

KROFT: (Voiceover) The National Security Agency won't talk about those successes or even confirm that a program called Echelon exists. But it's believed the international terrorist Carlos the Jackal was captured with the assistance of Echelon, and that it helped identify two Libyans the US believes blew up Pan-Am Flight 103.

Is it possible for people like you and I, innocent civilians, to be targeted by Echelon?

Mr. FROST: Not only possible, not only probable, but factual. While I was at CSE, a classic example: A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a--a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, 'Oh, Danny really bombed last night,' just like that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation w--was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist.

KROFT: This is not urban legend you're talking about. This actually happened?

Mr. FROST: Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here.

That specific conversation isn't going to come up and be flagged unless ALL conversations are being monitored.

Here's a link to the entire 60 mintues transcript that's from -

http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

I can't speak to Carnivore. You may be right. As I understand it, when Carnivore started it was illegal because email was not currently covered by any law and it took a while for the laws to catch up, but I have nothing solid on Carnivore to support that.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

FYI, the public library I work at does not keep a record of what you've checked out in the past. Once the item is returned, its connection to your record is severed (as long as you don't have any fines).

I'll bet that many other libraries are setting up their systems this way in retaliation to all this bullsht.

[innerSpaceman]

It's all well and good to say there's nothing new under the sun in the way of spying, but it's not simply a matter of accepting it cause it's always been done.

Using the NSA to spy on American citizens was last famously done by the Nixon Administration, which got clobbered for it in 1972. Nixon, like Bush, claimed an executive right to issue warrants for eavesdropping and wiretapping of Americans, but the Supreme Court flatly overruled him.

It is thus the law of the land that the president has no power to issue electronic monitoring warrants against American Citizens. It is also the law that the president does not have this power against international subjects either.

Specifically to curb any such wayward presidential ambitions, the FISA legislation was passed in 1978 - - establishing the FISA Court as the sole method for issuing of federal warrants for electronic monitoring of non-domestic subjects. The law makes it a felony for "any person" to go around the FISA Court for this purpose. It should be noted that the FISA Court is a rubber stamp, having denied just 8 warrant applications out of over 14,000. It is frankly amazing that the Bush Administration is essentially claiming they do not have to bother going thru FISA.

As Bush has just admitted that the non-FISA warrants were issued on his personal order, he has just confessed to committing a felony. I wonder whether scaeagles feels this is an impeachable offense.





Oh, and the recent NBC News story of Pentagon files being created on war-protesters smacks of another spying scandal of the Vietnam-era. The military had to foreswear all such domestic spying after it was uncovered in the early 70's ... eh, but what the hell - - that was 30 years ago! Who remembers? Time to start it all up again.


I hate that I have lived long enough to watch many of the horrors of the Vietnam era repeated in a corrupt military and a corrupt presidential administration. I agree with scaeagles that such corruption is nothing new. But it's alarming to me just how vigilent we must be to keep it at bay, for the same dirty tricks will be tried as soon as memory of the last round begins to fade.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Not based on what I've read. From a 60 minutes transcript -



From the same transcript:



KROFT: (Voiceover) But only after Goss threatened to cut the NSA's budget. He still believes, though, that the NSA does not eavesdrop on innocent American citizens.

If the NSA has capabilities to screen enormous numbers of telephone calls, faxes, e-mails, whatnot, how do you filter out the American conversations, and how do you--how can you be sure that no one is listening to those conversations?

Rep. GOSS: We do have methods for that, and I am relatively sure that those procedures are working very well.

So, in this instance, at least if Portor Goss is to be believed, there were safeguards in place to ensure that it wasn't used domestically. Not that I necessarily trust that information, but it comes from the senate intelligence oversight comittee.

With the current situation, we have the President flat-out admitting that he ordered this, it is being done, and will continue to be done.

I see a difference.

[Ghoulish Delight]

OK. Who is responsible for McCarthy's reincarnation?
I don't know, but damn do I hope someone figures out how to do the same with Edward R. Murrow.

[scaeagles]

I'm not convinced a felony took place (please refer to Alex's post - I believe it is the 13th of the thread - edited - its the 16th).

Pelosi and Reid have both given statements that they were, in fact, briefed on the program. Apparently, they weren't concerned about any legal violations or civil rights violations until the story hit in the NYT.

I am also reading that certain parts of the Patriot Act may have trumped or overridden parts of FISA, but I'm still not quite sure on all the legal parts of it.

I am torn, quite honestly. I'm a "slippery slope" kind of guy. I guess I fail to see harm in massive computers monitoring communications and flagging those with certain key words for analysis. How does this harm me, I wonder. But, it is certainly government intrusion. What could it lead to further on down the road?

I look at Lincoln, widely regarded as one of the greatest Presidents, who was certainly involved in a unique war, and some of the actions he took. He suspended the writ of habeus corpus over much of the Union. He had journalists thrown in prison. He also had various political enemies thrown in prison because they had spoken of supporting secession for some Union states. Harsh measures. Some prewar, some during the war. History certainly casts lincoln in a positive light. Were all these steps necessary? Without them being taken, would the North still have won the civil war? Who knows.

Tough times we live in. I suppose I have to evalute if I consider it a threat to my personal freedom and liberty to have a giant computer monitoring electronic conversations. If I were tagged as a terrorist for saying that my son's performance bombed (good lord, perhaps I just was tagged), I'd probably be pretty concerned.

[€uroMeinke]

I pretty much expect that anytime I use the internet my communications are being monitored - maybe not by the governement, but probably my employer, and various communications, media, and marketing firms.

Sure there's stuff I say and do that I hope remain private, but I aknowledge that it may well be beyond my control.

That said, this fear of "infiltration" reminds me unpleasently of the McCarthy era.

If we do have the best system of government in the world, it would be nice to let it work the way it's supposed to without the behind the scenes manipulations.

[scaeagles]

"Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." Winston Churchill.

There is no form of government that works the way it is supposed to.

If there were not people within our own borders that were bent on the destruction (or to inflict harm upon) the US of A, it would work a lot better.

So....what to do? Leave out certain forms of intelligence gathering that may prevent another 9/11 and then take the heat when another 9/11 takes place?

[€uroMeinke]

So....what to do? Leave out certain forms of intelligence gathering that may prevent another 9/11 and then take the heat when another 9/11 takes place?

That of course is the challenge - having happend once, we can be certain someone would like to make it happen again. To some extent though I wonder if this sort of intelligence actually effective against this sort of thing. You have software and agents looking for patterns, whicle the other side works to create new ones.

For me I guess I lack the confidence that such things can be prevented through these extra-survellience tools, and I fear more the potential for abuse. On the one hand, I suppose I should find comfort in both sides of the aisle being complicit in this thing, but the anarchist in me trusts neither of them to do anything that isn't self-serving.

[scaeagles]

I would have to say our electronic intelligence gathering is probably pretty sophisticated and gathers lots of stuff. The sad thing about intelligence gathering is that to publically discuss the successes would be self defeating by tipping what had been stopped by what means.

Every leak, sadly, tips the terrorist element - whether among us or on foreign shores - as to what we are able to do and how successful we are at doing it. I would like to think this is why Pelosi and Reid did not come forward after being briefed as to NSA surveillance methods.

[Gemini Cricket]

The part that bugs me is that Bush ran both campaigns as him being some sort of moral compass for America. That he was going to put morality back into the presidency after the Clinton Administration left. Obviously that ain't true. It's the hypocrisy that steams me. But, scaeagles is right this abuse of power ain't shocking. Not coming from this president...

[innerSpaceman]

And, according to legal reseach I've done today, Bush has commited a felony and is a criminal. There's no law that allows him to go around FISA in issuing warrants. It's the settled law of the land, according to the legislature and the rulings of the Supreme Court. He's a crook.

Clinton was also a crook. He perjured himself. He was impeached for it.


Bush has commited a felony. Argue with that if you will, scaeagles ... but I really want to know if - ASSUMING it's a felony and that Bush is therefore a felon - would you be in favor of Bush being impeached for it? Hypothetically. Indulge me.

[scaeagles]

I'll indulge you....

First, I'll say that from what I've read - and granted, I am not a lawyer - Bush has not committed a felony. However, hypothetically.....

Yes. If Bush has committed a felony, then he should be impeached and removed from office.

Edited to add:
You realize this means Cheney would be President. I could live with that.

I predict, however, that this will fail to gain traction politically or legally.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It's a sad age we live in when lying about a bj or talking about farts and lesbians are worse offenses than jeopardizing the freedoms on which this country was founded.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

and granted, I am not a lawyer

Is that you, Condi? ;)

[wendybeth]

I'll indulge you....

First, I'll say that from what I've read - and granted, I am not a lawyer - Bush has not committed a felony. However, hypothetically.....

Yes. If Bush has committed a felony, then he should be impeached and removed from office.

Edited to add:
You realize this means Cheney would be President. I could live with that.

I predict, however, that this will fail to gain traction politically or legally.
Unless it could be proved that Cheney is the one who leaked the story, along with the Plame case.... Who else has such a great motive?:evil:

[€uroMeinke]

Unless it could be proved that Cheney is the one who leaked the story, along with the Plame case.... Who else has such a great motive?:evil:

So then we get Condi? I could probably live with that.

[Prudence]

So then we get Condi? I could probably live with that.

Well, no, first would be the Speaker of the House, then the President pro tempore of the Senate, and then Condi.

[wendybeth]

Well, no, first would be the Speaker of the House, then the President pro tempore of the Senate, and then Condi.

Then, Al Haig.

[scaeagles]

I do wonder what everyone thinks about Lincoln. Those items I mentioned earlier most certainly did happen, along with many other questionable and perhaps illegal actions. Were they a necessary evil? It is certainly possible at the time that he was viewed as a Constitution hating power hungry egomaniac. History does not view him this way.

Do we live in a country where there are necessary evils? Government itself is a necessary evil.

[Name]

Going back a large number of posts in this thread, I have a hard time believing a former spy(Mr. Frost) would go into such depths on what would be highly classified information on a national news program and not be in Fort Levenworth. He would have to get a lot of clearances from the many organizations to be able to appear and disclose such things, and they would only be disclosed by the approval of the organizations. I can't imagine they would approve of him disclosing those things. Once you are no longer a spy, your responsibility for safeguarding classified information does not stop. Sounds a lot like a smokescreen and scare tactics to me.

[scaeagles]

Sounds a lot like a smokescreen and scare tactics to me.

I'm not sure I follow you here. While I understand what you are saying regarding classified information, this was a story from back in 2000, prior to Bush becoming President.

So what was the smokescreen for? Who was the target of the scare tactics?

[Name]

And, upon further review of the transcript, the former spy, was Canadian, there is much internal US intel stuff that is not shared with Canadian folks. Sounds alot like the bit that scaeagles clipped out was of a canadian bit of internal spying on their own citizens, as it is doubtful to me that he would have any knowledge of such things inside the US intel field.

[Name]

I'm not sure I follow you here. While I understand what you are saying regarding classified information, this was a story from back in 2000, prior to Bush becoming President.

So what was the smokescreen for? Who was the target of the scare tactics?
The NSA is a large unknown place, and thus scary. My take on the scare tactics is, fear is very good for ratings.... that is in my opinion the target of the scare.

[CoasterMatt]

Then, Al Haig.
Damn, you beat me to it!

"I'm in charge here!" :D

Check this (http://www.johnclarkonline.com/ezine/ezine26.asp) out for a related anecdote.

[€uroMeinke]

I do wonder what everyone thinks about Lincoln. Those items I mentioned earlier most certainly did happen, along with many other questionable and perhaps illegal actions. Were they a necessary evil? It is certainly possible at the time that he was viewed as a Constitution hating power hungry egomaniac. History does not view him this way.

Do we live in a country where there are necessary evils? Government itself is a necessary evil.

Hard to say - I guess this might be a result of "History is written by the victor." which in this situation if we "win the war on terror" I guess this will be seen as a necessary evil. I guess time will tell just how much of the terrorist enemy was in our midst.

I tend to think this may turn out like the hunt for communists, while certainly there were some at home, the real victory was ultimately defeating them abroad by simply leveraging our better economic system. Likewise, I think Islamic Fundametalism will go the way of communism, lots of nice ideals, but way to oppressive for its citizens to live with.

But getting back to Lincoln, the civil war and succeding states were a very tangible "enemy," but in some ways it's interesting to contemplate what might have been, if the nation was allowed to split in two with Lincoln a raving imperialist war monger.

[Gemini Cricket]

Two articles I read this morning that are very interesting:

NY Times: F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?ei=5094&en=171df5b870cdd147&hp=&ex=1135141200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all):
The latest batch of documents, parts of which the A.C.L.U. plans to release publicly on Tuesday, totals more than 2,300 pages and centers on references in internal files to a handful of groups, including PETA, the environmental group Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers group, which promotes antipoverty efforts and social causes.
Newsweek: Bush's Snoopgate (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/)
The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times’ eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper’s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn’t just out of concern about national security.

Daily Show-esque follow up to the above:
An unconfirmed source said that the CIA also bugged the Oval Office. If you play one of the tapes, you can hear Bush say repeatedly, 'It's good to be the king.'
:D

[Moonliner]

And the hits just keep on coming...

While our gallant homeland defense operatives are out questioning literature buffs, several HUNDRED POUNDS of C-4 weapons grade Explosives were stolen (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1421579) from an UNGARDED and UNMONITORED storage facility.

Oh yea. :rolleyes:

[SacTown Chronic]

At least The Mystery Of The Harriet Miers Nomination has been solved. Dubya sez, "Fvck my base, I have an ass to save -- mine."

[scaeagles]

Something like that is most likely an inside job, or at least involved inside help. They knew where to go, where to cut, what they were looking for. However, the oversight in security still stands.

I do wonder how many of these type of things have been thwarted that we will never know about.

I figure ELF (Earth Liberation Front) or some other domestic terror group is behind it. More domestic surveillance NOW! (relax - that's a joke.)

[Gemini Cricket]

:mad:
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network on Tuesday condemned Pentagon officials for spying on civilian groups—especially student groups opposed to "don't ask, don't tell." The group said it plans to file a Freedome of Information Act request to try and learn if other LGBT groups have been targeted.
Source (http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid23608.asp)

[SacTown Chronic]

Source (http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid23608.asp)


In January, the Department of Defense confirmed a report that Air Force officials proposed developing a chemical weapon in 1994 that would turn enemies gay. The proposal, part of a plan from Wright Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was to develop “chemicals that effect (sic) human behavior so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely effected (sic). One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior.” SLDN also condemned that report, and the Pentagon later said it never intended to develop the program.

Put down your weapon and grab your tool, soldier. It's party time!

[Gemini Cricket]

Put down your weapon and grab your tool, soldier. It's party time!
In January, the Department of Defense confirmed a report that Air Force officials proposed developing a chemical weapon in 1994 that would turn enemies gay.
Well, hopefully only the cute enemies...
:D

[Not Afraid]

I might have to turn in my Hag Card if this is true. ;)

[scaeagles]

Well, hopefully only the cute enemies...
:D

Have you seen the members of Al Qaeda? Think you're out of luck.

[wendybeth]

Have you seen the members of Al Qaeda? Think you're out of luck.

Oh, nothing a little shaving cream and a full body manicure wouldn't fix.

NA- They can take away my card, but the secret handshake? Never!!!!

[Gemini Cricket]

Have you seen the members of Al Qaeda? Think you're out of luck.
Oded Fehr (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004912/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxteD0yMHxsbT01MDB8ZmI9dXxwbj0xfHE9b2 RlZCBmZWhyfGh0bWw9MXxubT0x;fc=1;ft=20) plays a terrorist on Showtime.
'Wouldn't kick him out of bed.
;)

I don't think I'd get into a serious relationship with a gay terrorist. I hear they have explosive personalities...
:D

[scaeagles]

Oded Fehr plays a terrorist on Showtime.
'Wouldn't kick him out of bed.

Hollywood, shmolleywood. You ever seen a street with as many hot women as Wisteria Lane?????

[SacTown Chronic]

I don't think I'd get into a serious relationship with a gay terrorist. I hear they have explosive personalities...
:D

I hear Bin Laden has a hard time recruiting gays. Something about 72 female virgins not being any gay man's idea of paradise.

[scaeagles]

I hear Bin Laden has a hard time recruiting gays. Something about 72 female virgins not being any gay man's idea of paradise.

Plus, it's hard to find a belt packed with explosives that's also fashionable.

[Scrooge McSam]

Pelosi and Reid have both given statements that they were, in fact, briefed on the program. Apparently, they weren't concerned about any legal violations or civil rights violations until the story hit in the NYT.

I'm probably late to the game, but I don't believe that's an accurate characterization of their responses. It's quite possible these statements hit after your post.


The President asserted in his December 17th radio address that "leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it." This statement gives the American public a very misleading impression that the President fully consulted with Congress.

First, it is quite likely that 96 Senators of 100 Senators, including 13 of 15 on the Senate Intelligence Committee first learned about this program in the New York Times, not from any Administration briefing.

I personally received a single very short briefing on this program earlier this year prior to its public disclosure. That briefing occurred more than three years after the President said this program began.

The Administration briefers did not seek my advice or consent about the program, and based on what I have heard publicly since, key details about the program apparently were not provided to me.

Under current Administration briefing guidelines, members of Congress are informed after decisions are made, have virtually no ability to either approve or reject a program, and are prohibited from discussing these types of programs with nearly all of their fellow members and all of their staff.

We need to investigate this program and the President's legal authority to carry it out. We also need to review this flawed congressional consultation system. I will be asking the President to cooperate in both reviews.


We all agree that the President must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people, but that intelligence must be produced in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution and our laws. The President's statement today raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful.

I was advised of President Bush's decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities shortly after he made it and have been provided with updates on several occasions.

The Bush Administration considered these briefings to be notification, not a request for approval. As is my practice whenever I am notified about intelligence activities, I expressed my strong concerns during these briefings.

And just for grins, Here's Daschle (remember him?)

Between 2002 and 2004, the White House notified me in classified briefings about NSA programs related to the war on terrorism. The briefers made clear they were not seeking my advice or consent, but were simply informing me about new actions. If subsequent public accounts are accurate, it now also appears the briefers omitted key details, including important information about the scope of the program.

Even with some of the more troublesome - and potentially illegal - details omitted, I still raised significant concern about these actions. As such, I am surprised and disappointed that the White House would now suggest that none of us informed of the program objected.

As a result of the significant legal and security concerns raised by the President's actions, I believe it is incumbent on the President to explain the specific legal justification for his actions, for the Congress to fully investigate these actions, and for the Administration to fully cooperate with that investigation.

To other matters...

I have a hard time believing a former spy(Mr. Frost) would go into such depths on what would be highly classified information on a national news program and not be in Fort Levenworth. He would have to get a lot of clearances from the many organizations to be able to appear and disclose such things, and they would only be disclosed by the approval of the organizations. I can't imagine they would approve of him disclosing those things. Once you are no longer a spy, your responsibility for safeguarding classified information does not stop. Sounds a lot like a smokescreen and scare tactics to me.

Bless you, my son

[wendybeth]

Oh, I don't know, Scrooge- it's entirely possible that Bush asked for their blessings prior to authorizing these actions. :rolleyes:


This is what happens when you have a President who thinks he's on a mission from God. He is above the law of the land, and he's only doing this for our own good. Forget the Constitutional scholars and legal experts- he knows what is best for us. So many people are willing to give up their freedom because of fear, and the sad thing is nothing is really being done to protect us.

[scaeagles]

Oh, I don't know, Scrooge- it's entirely possible that Bush asked for their blessings prior to authorizing these actions.

They'd have no reason to lie, would they? I'm sure I'm about as likely to take Reid, Pelosi, and Daschle at their word as you are to take the word of Bush.

Just for fun....found this little executive order......

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

What! This type of thing happening before Bush?!?! And from someone who so highly values our civil rights?!?!

I would believe his legal team probably told him the same thing.....that it was legal.

[wendybeth]

Whether or not it was legal remains to be seen. Ignorance is not a defense, even for George. Minutes of the meetings can prove or disprove what the others say, and should this go to court then we will find out. Most of all, just because others have done it does not make it legal or right. You're constantly bringing that up makes me cranky in a way that my kid does when she says "Well, Katie's mom let's her do it!"

[scaeagles]

Most of all, just because others have done it does not make it legal or right. You're constantly bringing that up makes me cranky in a way that my kid does when she says "Well, Katie's mom let's her do it!"

If you'll reread the thread, I have clearly said I think it's wrong. What I find amazing, though, and have also said, is that this is being portrayed as "new". It isn't new. That's why I don't get the whole attitude of shock, particularly by members of congress. Well, actually I do get it - it isn't that they are shocked, and they know it's been happening forever, they are simply trying to play shocked for the political value of it.

I could make you really mad and link an executive order from Carter authorizing the same thing. Again, wrong. Again, not new.

[wendybeth]

Show me ONE post that says that a precedent has been set by this action- it could very well be that I missed that, and if so I apologise. In the absence of such a post, your finger-pointing is a trifle....irritating. I know this kind of crap has happened in the past, and will continue to happen, but it's the sort of thing that has brought down politicians throughout our history- I don't know if he'll slide by on this one. Bush was elected on a backlash against perceived corruption- something he and his handlers used to their advantage. He painted himself as a moral, incorruptable man and he is simply not so. Saying that's just the way of the world and we should accept it (not saying you are- just the pundits on his side) does not make it right.

[scaeagles]

I believe that in the media there is a manufactured "shock" that this has taken place, even when it wasn't hard to find executive orders by both Clinton and Carter doing, well, the same thing. I believe the same "shock" is evident throughout posts here. It is most certainly possible that I am misreading it.

I don't know if Bush was elected because he was perceived as incorruptable. I think Gore and Kerry sucked as candidates. A situation that I am not convinced was illegal is not going to point to corruptability in my mind, though.

I like history, and I like historical perspective, and I think it is usually relevant. I am oft amazed at the short memory of the media and the public in general. We could talk about what politicians have run on throughout history and could find that most of it was crap.

Just to be clear - I don't justify any illegal action or campaign lies or being misled by candidates - if in fact this situation points to such things. I just honestly don't understand the "shock" factor. It is not new. And that's what is completely political on the part of Reid and Pelosi and Boxer et al.

[Scrooge McSam]

your finger-pointing is a trifle....irritating.

You're being way too kind, IMO. Yes, it's irritating, but also sloppy and misleading. But come on, Wendy... you gotta love it when the wingers start pointing to Clinton, their sworn enemy, to try to justify Bush's messes.

What! This type of thing happening before Bush?!?! And from someone who so highly values our civil rights?!?!

And this is the problem. You are trying to compare an executive order from Clinton with what's been happening under Bush. Yes, it's a great little "gotcha" you can throw out there to try and confuse someone into thinking there's equivalence, when there is none.

Let's take a link at that Clinton executive order, the link to which you were so kind as to provide.

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
So what does 302(a)(1) provide?

Let's see:
the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers."
In other words, NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS

and...
there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person."
Again, NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS

To continue, notice that Clinton's executive order is confined to physical searches. That's important, as well. Physical searches exclude electronic surveillance.

So, NO... Clinton did not do the the same type of thing. There is no equivalence, no matter how much Michelle Malkin shrieks otherwise.

[wendybeth]

Federal judge resigns (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179344,00.html)

A judge on the Federal Surveillance Court has resigned due to concerns regarding the legality of Bush's actions.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Saw a brilliant bit of questioning yesterday. At a press conference with some White House spokesman, someone read this definition of Congressional oversight.

Congress regards oversight as "the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations of the executive, to have access to records or materials held by the executive, or to issue subpoenas for documents or testimony from the executive. " Source (http://www.cdfe.org/congressional_oversight.htm)

She then asked, which of those three powers was Congress given in this case? His response? "Congress is an independant branch of the government. The President informed them of the program. That's oversight." She shot right back, "Yes, but were they allowed inqueries, access to records, or the power to issue subpoenas?" Then, like a freaking robot, "Congress is an independant branch of the government. The President informed them of the program." In otherwords, he had no answer because saying, "Hey, I'm doing this" and then not allowing Congress to investigate it is NOT oversight.

[SacTown Chronic]

We did it because it is legal (Just, please, don't break the story, NYT.)

We did it because FISA is too slow (And never mind that 72 hour retroactive thang.)

We only did it with international calls (Except, oops, when we accidentally wiretapped domestic calls. I wonder if warrants would have helped prevent these "accidents"?).

Congress gave us the power to do it when they authorized Bush to use force after 9/11 (but we didn't ask congress for this specific power because we were told they wouldn't give it to us.)

Clinton did it too! (AND he likes BJs!!!!!!!!)

9/11! (9/11!)

[Motorboat Cruiser]

And that's what is completely political on the part of Reid and Pelosi and Boxer et al.

Funny that you only mention the dems that are outraged by this. There are plenty in your own party that are a bit perturbed by this whole thing.

[SacTown Chronic]

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Dec05/classified.html


Washington, D.C. -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on her request to the Director of National Intelligence to declassify a letter she wrote to the Bush Administration expressing concerns about the activities of the National Security Agency.

"When I learned that the National Security Agency had been authorized to conduct the activities that President Bush referred to in his December 17 radio address, I expressed my strong concerns in a classified letter to the Administration and later verbally.

"Today, in an effort to shed light on my concerns, I requested that the Director of National Intelligence quickly declassify my letter and the Administration's response to it and make them both available to the public.

[scaeagles]

I will say again.....I do not like that this is happening. My point is that everyone is acting so shocked that it is happening. It is nothing new.

The interesting thing is that I am not vilifying Clinton or Carter in their actions. I have no doubt that they intended it to be for the gathering of foreign intelligence, but that it most likely also crossed into the domestic.

You don't see me being hard on Clinton or Carter about it. Again, my point is that everyone who seems so shocked KNOWS it has gone on.

Of course there are Republicans upset about it. As am I. One widely respected Republican - who I am not a fan of, by the way - McCain, said he believes it was justified and legal. Colin Powell has also said the same thing.

So....I am justifying nothing. I said if Bush has committed a felony, let him be impeached. I am pointing that it is nothing new, and those in the know in Washington who act like it is are sickening to me.

I really don't know how to make my point anymore clear. If you disagree with it, great - wouldn't be the first time around here, for sure. But I think you believe I am doing somehting that I am not, giving my approval to it (the domestic part of it) because it is Bush, and at the same time justifying it because Clinton and Carter both did similar things. Just pointing out that it is nothing new.

[Alex]

GD, how exactly would the president prevent Congress from investigating something? He has no power to prevent such (he can not cooperate with an investigation but that would give Congress reason to take it to the courts as has been done in the past when the president doesn't cooperate with an investigation).

I'm confused by comments from some of the senators that they were prevented from discussing this program, even with others on the subcommittee because the White House told them they couldn't. Unless there is some statute I'm unaware of that gives the executive the right to limit discussion in the legislature then at best this was again political cowardice and at worst agreement (now turned to repugnance for political reasons).

I have an opinion on whether this surveillance should have happened (it shouldn't have) but that opinion is independent of whether it is actually legal, which is a determination that most us here (and most of the armchair pundits we're turning to) don't have the technical knowledge to determine.

I hope it is illegal, and if it turns out it isn't then I hope it is made illegal.

[scaeagles]

A well written and relatively brief piece from the Chicago Tribune on why all was legal, including some history on court decisions from the last couple decades -

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

[SacTown Chronic]

::shrug::

I could link to ten opinion pieces that say Bush broke the law. It won't prove anything.



In any case, here's a rebuttal to the opinion piece you linked to, scaeagles:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/21/appeals-court-myth

[scaeagles]

Thanks, Sac - and I really mean that.

And exactly - it won't prove anything. All we have is conjecture and political posturing everywhere. From what I have read, I would tend to think his actions were not illegal. Obviously many would differ with me.

And in fact, the more I have read and heard, the more I tend not to find the action even horribly objectionable. I'm sure I'm going to be slammed on this.

In 2002, a terrorist with a cell phone was captured. They were able to do whatever one does to a cell phone and determine every number he had called, and eventually make up a list of numbers that they were going to monitor without warrant. The objective was to find out who on American soil was talking to these people on foreign soil from the marked numbers.

Most certainly, and I really don't know how, mistakes were made and some conversations were monitored that should not have been by the NSA.

Anyway, I have no objections whatsoever to the described actions above. I find them not unreasonable (remember, the 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant).

So....call me a fascist or whatever, but that's what I think. It has not come easily. I am not comfortable in the least with the government monitoring my communications, whether intentionally or accidentally. However, should i have had contact with a phone number discovered on a terrorist cell phone, I don't think it unreasonable to be monitored.

This goes for actions from every administration that did similar things.

[Name]

In my (close to expert, as I have worked in the field, and know there is lotsa red tape to jump through) opinion.... this needs to be investigated, because there are a lot of things that must be done to have the policies in place waived. If all the i's and t's were not correctly done, then there can be major problems... I hope that the congress and the courts investigate this fully, and not sweep it under the carpet.

[SacTown Chronic]

Anyway, I have no objections whatsoever to the described actions above.
But couldn't they have accomplished the objectives you cite with a warrant?


I find them not unreasonable (remember, the 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant).
The problem with acting without warrants is that the Bush administration is essentially saying, "trust us, we only spy on the bad guys". So how do we know they're not behaving in an "unreasonable" manner? Their word? Puhlease.

I keep coming back to why? Why not request warrants from a judicial body with something like a .00097% denial rate? What are they up to and who are they spying on that they don't feel a warrant will be issued by this group who, seemingly, issue warrants at the drop of a hat?
However, should i have had contact with a phone number discovered on a terrorist cell phone, I don't think it unreasonable to be monitored.
Neither would FISA.

[scaeagles]

I really don't know the answer to the warrant question. All I can say, and this is not intending to justify anything based on the past, is that it is apparent that this is the M.O. with certain national security issues. Why, I have no idea.

[Name]

I really don't know the answer to the warrant question. All I can say, and this is not intending to justify anything based on the past, is that it is apparent that this is the M.O. with certain national security issues. Why, I have no idea.
But, it hasn't been the M.O. on DOMESTIC spying, just foreign.... even as Clinton's Executive Order pointed out....

[scaeagles]

But, it hasn't been the M.O. on DOMESTIC spying, just foreign.... even as Clinton's Executive Order pointed out....

I'm not convinced that the targets were domestic, unless they were in contact with known terrorist suspects.

[Name]

I'm not convinced that the targets were domestic, unless they were in contact with known terrorist suspects.
And its impossible to be a law abiding citizen, and unknowingly have contact, maybe even a friendship with a person the state considers to be a terrorist? So by that unknown association, you then become a terrorism suspect, as well as everyone that you know as well.... So conversations and stuff that shouldn't be recorded, cataloged, and archived without a warrant, now are because you know someone that the state thinks is a terrorist, unbecknownst to you.... that sir, is the things that make this wrong... and needs to be looked at by the congress and the courts...

[scaeagles]

I actually do not have a problem with that. Sorry, but if you are in contact with terror suspects, even if that is not known to you, then surveillance is not unreasonable.

[Name]

In my opinion, yes it is, especially without a warrant.... it provides the beginnings of a slippery slope of more violations of rights... and whats to say, they hear a conversation of a private nature of you(just a place holder, don't mean you specifically) talking with a good friend about you catching your son smoking pot... the next thing you know there is a knock on your door from your local friendly DEA agent who wants to search your home for illicit drugs, and since they have you talking about it on tape, they don't need a wartant anymore, as they could probably argue probable cause, after all, your son might be dealing too unknown to you.... and the government is only out to protect you and the community from yourself... this is the possible end result of the slippery slope that you do not find unreasonable... after all, since you have a friend that is a terrorism suspect unbecknownst to you, all your rights are now belong to the government...

[Alex]

What is interesting is that there is apparently no concern with warrantless surveillance of any and all electronic communications outside of the United States.

So the legal solution is simple:

We monitor all coversations in Canada and Canada monitor all conversations in the United States. If either country finds something suspicion they let the other intelligence agency know about it and traditional legal investigation can begin (or we could just turn a blind eye when the RCMP launches anti-terrorist missions into the United States to take our suspicion chatters).

[Name]

I would love to comment on that idea, but, don't think it would be wise for me to do.... given my past positions.......

[Prudence]

One of my (now former) co-workers is in federal detention prior to deportation on misdemeanor drug charges because they haven't been able to prove the terrorism link they suspect.

So, you think it's reasonable that I should now be under constant surveillance by the government? I'm quite disturbed to learn that you feel my privacy should be dismissed so easily.

[Scrooge McSam]

I will say again.....

I know... I LOVE that about you.

I do not like that this is happening.

Check! With you so far.

My point is that everyone is acting so shocked that it is happening. It is nothing new.

And here's where we go off track. If I understand you, you are saying that ordering wiretaps on domestics without court orders is common practice in the White House. Is that what you're saying? Stop me here if it's not.

OK, then... Produce your evidence. I've never seen evidence suggesting previous presidents mentioned here have ordered wiretaps on domestics without the benefit of court involvement. If you can show this is common practice, let's see your research and let the chips fall where they may.

You don't see me being hard on Clinton or Carter about it. Again, my point is that everyone who seems so shocked KNOWS it has gone on.

No, sorry. You, and you alone, are alleging this is common practice. I'm asking you to back up that assertion.

[scaeagles]

Ever hear of Aldrich Ames? CIA guy giving secrets to the Russians. US citizen. Not one warrant issued in the entire investigation, including searches of his home.

I am certainly not defending Ames. In defense of their practices, legal council (this happened under Clinton) said that the President has "inherent authority to conduct warrentless searches" in areas of national security.

What exactly does "inherent authority" mean? It can only mean that the authority comes from the Constitution.

And just for fun, here's a nice link to a story which goes into a radio address by Clinton that authoized warrntless searches in crime ridden housing projects. No foreign intelligence application here -

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

By the way, I do not believe that either OSHA or the EPA requires any sort of warrant to inspect private property. Also, if you own a gun shop, you can be inspected by law enforcement at any time with no warrant issued.

Prudence, I am not sorry to say that yes, if you are in phone contact with known terrorists, I am fully in support of you being monitored.

[Prudence]

Prudence, I am not sorry to say that yes, if you are in phone contact with known terrorists, I am fully in support of you being monitored.

What an astoundingly insulting thing for you to say. Did I ever state that I was in phone contact -- or any kind of contact -- with "known terrorists"? The fact that you would jump to such an assumption implies a very low regard for my integrity.

I stated that someone who used to be a coworker is in federal detention. I did not at any point indicate that I had any contact with this individual since his detention. I interacted with him when he was a coworker because it was part of my job and I had no reason to suspect him of anything. In fact, he has not been charged with any terrorist activities so I don't think he qualifies as a "known terrorist." And if he was now a "known terrorist," you honestly think I would remain in phone contact him?

The question I asked was if I should be monitored because someone with whom I have spoken on a professional basis in the past is now detained. You responded with an implication that I would intentionally remain in contact with "known terrorists".

Nice smear campaign.

[Alex]

Wow, you're amazingly easy to insult.

Actually, that wasn't the question you asked. You gave absolutely no indication in your first post what your current contact is with the person, you didn't say that all interaction had been purely professional and that all interaction had stopped. On that basis I'd have answered much the same as scaeagles, if you're in contact with someone the government thinks is a terrorist I would expect you to be investigated (though I would also expect a warrant where required). Noticed the big "if" in his answer, it was properly conditional considering you gave no useful information for making a determination.

Under the conditions that you decided to share in your second post, then no, investigation seems to me unreasonable unless something came up in other investigations.

[scaeagles]

What an astoundingly insulting thing for you to say. Did I ever state that I was in phone contact -- or any kind of contact -- with "known terrorists"?

The question I asked was if I should be monitored because someone with whom I have spoken on a professional basis in the past is now detained. You responded with an implication that I would intentionally remain in contact with "known terrorists".

My suggestion - learn how to read. I said that yes, IF you are in contact with known terrorists, you should be under surveillance.

Alex said it better than I could.

Do you seriously think I was suggesting that you were in contact with known terrorists? :rolleyes:

[Gemini Cricket]

"It seems to me that if you're the president, you have to proceed with great caution when you do anything that flies in the face of the Constitution," said Warren Rudman, a former Republican senator from New Hampshire who has served on a number of government intelligence advisory boards. He calls the administration's surveillance program "a matter of grave concern."
and
David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, described the spy program as a case of "presidential overreaching" that he said most Americans would reject. Columnist George Will wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece that "conservatives' wholesome wariness of presidential power has been a casualty of conservative presidents winning seven of the past 10 elections."

Bob Barr, a Georgia conservative who was one of the Republican Party's loudest opponents of government snooping until he left Congress in 2003, says the furor should stand as a test of Republicans' willingness to call their president to task. "This is just such an egregious violation of the electronic surveillance laws," Mr. Barr says.
Source: Today's Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113521681931529119-eHpzQmLUyX8mf_4UNw2D11NYP74_20061222.html?mod=blog s)

[Prudence]

My suggestion - learn how to read. I said that yes, IF you are in contact with known terrorists, you should be under surveillance.

Alex said it better than I could.

Do you seriously think I was suggesting that you were in contact with known terrorists? :rolleyes:

I think the implication was fairly clear from your post.

[scaeagles]

I think the implication was fairly clear from your post.

Yep - I guess it was. That's fits in with most of my postings around here. Accusing people who disagree with me politically of having ties to terrorists.:rolleyes:

[Name]

Ever hear of Aldrich Ames? CIA guy giving secrets to the Russians. US citizen. Not one warrant issued in the entire investigation, including searches of his home.

I am certainly not defending Ames. In defense of their practices, legal council (this happened under Clinton) said that the President has "inherent authority to conduct warrentless searches" in areas of national security.

What exactly does "inherent authority" mean? It can only mean that the authority comes from the Constitution.when you enter into such positions, then you enter into agreements with the government that if they suspect enough, they will look into it deeper, that was all Mr. Ames doing, as he authorized said searches as a condition of 1) Employment, and 2) the clearance that he held.

Apples and Oranges argument.

And just for fun, here's a nice link to a story which goes into a radio address by Clinton that authoized warrntless searches in crime ridden housing projects. No foreign intelligence application here -

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
are we talking the common area's of the housing projects, (too lazy at the moment to read the article) but even so, the key words "crime ridden" are much different than any random citizen who just happened to have met a suspected terrorist once in his life...

By the way, I do not believe that either OSHA or the EPA requires any sort of warrant to inspect private property. Also, if you own a gun shop, you can be inspected by law enforcement at any time with no warrant issued. more apples and oranges....

When business owners start those businesses they are well aware of the possible inspections. don't want to be inspected, don't start the business.

Prudence, I am not sorry to say that yes, if you are in phone contact with known terrorists, I am fully in support of you being monitored.

But if YOU don't know they are a terrorist, or have terrorist ties, or that a friend of yours doesn't have terrorist ties, by this logic, they can justify tapping every single americans phone without a warrant. And that is just not right. I am glad that you support a Orwelian society, but I sir do not...

And my last comment, exactly how many degree's of seperation would you support, 1, 2, 6, 12? Where does it end? When we all have camera's in our houses monitoring us every minute?

[innerSpaceman]

Despite the famed Kevin Bacon game, there are really only 4 degrees of separation between everyone alive. That's awfully thin connectivity that could lead to everyone being wiretapped pronto.

[scaeagles]

I am glad that you support a Orwelian society, but I sir do not...

When we all have camera's in our houses monitoring us every minute?

Orwellian?!?! I support an Orwellian society?!?! I am insulted at the very thought and implication of that. How dare you! Oh, wait.....I guess I won't take it personally.

Seriously, though, I am not for government intrusion. I believe it is a long, long way from monitoring US citizens that have received phone calls from overseas that have come from known terrorists to a camera in every bedroom. Talk about apples and oranges.

I can buy the EPA and OSHA being apples and oranges. I was merely trying to set up an example of government intrusion that no one really gets too concerned about. I personally am happy there are health inspectors. The gun store example, however, i do not believe is apples and oranges. if you would like more of an explanation as to why, I'll go into it.

[Name]

Orwellian?!?! I support an Orwellian society?!?! I am insulted at the very thought and implication of that. How dare you! Oh, wait.....I guess I won't take it personally.Hee hee, a bit of an over-exaggeration, but still, going unabated, chip away enough privacy items, and we are there... its only a matter of time, and such is my aversion to ANY chipping away of privacy issues.

Seriously, though, I am not for government intrusion. I believe it is a long, long way from monitoring US citizens that have received phone calls from overseas that have come from known terrorists to a camera in every bedroom. Talk about apples and oranges.

is there documented proof that ALL the monitored phone calls were international? I would be surprised to hear yes, as the targets are probably documented on papers that have lots of red ink stamped on the top and bottom with the words top and secret(and maybe a few other words)

[Scrooge McSam]

I believe it is a long, long way from monitoring US citizens that have received phone calls from overseas that have come from known terrorists to a camera in every bedroom.

I just can't take as much for granted as you can. Our record in judging who is and who is not a terrorist ain't all that impressive. If they're known, get a warrant and do it the right way.

[Name]

I just can't take as much for granted as you can. Our record in judging who is and who is not a terrorist ain't all that impressive. If they're known, get a warrant and do it the right way.
bah, its really quite simple.......

"does he have a pulse?"

"yes"

"alright, he might be a terrorist, better put surveillance on his phone calls"

[scaeagles]

From what I've read, it comes back to a specific captured terrorist cell phone. I posted this earlier. They have a listing of phone numbers called from that cell phone. Any call coming in from overseas from one of those numbers was monitored.

Perhaps I should have....used something other than "known terrorists". I'll say associate of a known terrorist.

[Name]

From what I've read, it comes back to a specific captured terrorist cell phone. I posted this earlier. They have a listing of phone numbers called from that cell phone. Any call coming in from overseas from one of those numbers was monitored.

Perhaps I should have....used something other than "known terrorists". I'll say associate of a known terrorist.
I would like to believe that is true, but can't really know, as I don't have the clearance any more, and even if I did, would not fall under my "need to know"

Which is why I think that the Congress and courts should investigate this...

[Alex]

Well, it looks like the underpinning incident of this thread is gone.

The student made the whole thing up. (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-05/a01lo719.htm)

That said, as I pointed out, government surveillance of library usage is an ongoing threat and should be resisted whenever possible.

[wendybeth]

Well, it looks like the underpinning incident of this thread is gone.

The student made the whole thing up. (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-05/a01lo719.htm)

That said, as I pointed out, government surveillance of library usage is an ongoing threat and should be resisted whenever possible.
The little ****head.

Still, the fallout from the Bush story continues, and grows: Spying more extensive than previously thought (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179661,00.html).

I cited Faux news, even though it's on every outlet. Just for our 'Fair and Balanced' friends......;)