Librarians turned snitch?
 

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."....

Good thing I own my own copy...

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?

OK. Who is responsible for McCarthy's reincarnation?

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.

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.

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:

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.

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, which is about the FBI's Library Awareness Program.

Here is a historical recap of the national security argument for reading habit surveillance. And here 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.

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?

Probably because it was checked out in the agents name.

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.

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.;)

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

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:

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:



(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.)

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

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'...

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

From the same transcript:


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.

I don't know, but damn do I hope someone figures out how to do the same with Edward R. Murrow.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Is that you, Condi? ;)

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.

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

Then, Al Haig.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Damn, you beat me to it!

"I'm in charge here!" :D

Check this out for a related anecdote.

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.

Two articles I read this morning that are very interesting:

NY Times: F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show:
Newsweek: Bush's Snoopgate
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

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 from an UNGARDED and UNMONITORED storage facility.

Oh yea. :rolleyes:

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

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.)

:mad:
Source

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

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

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

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!!!!

Oded Fehr 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

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

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.

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.

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

To other matters...

Bless you, my son

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.

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So what does 302(a)(1) provide?

Let's see:
In other words, NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS

and...
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.

Federal judge resigns

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

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

Source

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.

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!)

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.

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/re...lassified.html

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.

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.

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/o...commentary-hed

::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

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.

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.

But couldn't they have accomplished the objectives you cite with 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?
Neither would FISA.

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....

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...

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.

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...

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).

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

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.

I know... I LOVE that about you.

Check! With you so far.

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.

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

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/20...2610-7772r.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.

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.

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.

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:

and
Source: Today's Wall Street Journal

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:

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.
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...
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.
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?

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.

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.

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.
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)

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"

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...

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

The student made the whole thing up.

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.

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