| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: NSA spies on U.S. Citizens, without a warrant Posted by: Tree - Sustainer [599393013] Fri, Dec 16, 2005, 12:17 Report of NSA Spying Prompts Call for Probe not that this news comes as any surprise, but i'd like to congratulate those who voted for Bush. this is your president, so kudos to you. | |||||||
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] | ||||||||
| 310 | Seattle Zen ID: 91152620 Mon, Jan 30, 2006, 14:48 |
Interesting. He argues that FISA is out of date, few would debate that point. Having access to a torrent of digital data allowing data mining was not envisioned in 1978. So it may now be appropriate to have Congress consider new laws and regulations. That article operates under a baseline assumption that this Administration is admitting to violating FISA - "seemingly heedless of the law" and "he secretly decides a measure is unconstitutional and neglects to say so". Even the centrists think Bush is violating FISA. If I were a talking head interviewing some Administration sap, I would ask, "If the courts determined that the President's actions violated FISA and that FISA was a valid, constitutional law, do you think the POTUS would be facing criminal sanctions?" "FISA has specific sanctions expressed in the law. If the court determined that he violated that law, why would he not face the sanctions? Surely you aren't saying the POTUS is above the law?" "No, no, you are not listening. Let me restate slowly so you can follow. The Supreme Court has ruled that FISA was violated. They determined that the law has been valid and constitutional for decades. The courts had determined that by failing to get warrants, this Administration violated the law MANY, many times. The law has criminal sanctions. Why would anyone who violated FISA not face these sanctions?" "Does this administration require you to BE a weasel before joining, or is it something taught? Do you break out in hives whenever you answer a question with forthrightness? Perhaps you will never know..." :) | ||||||
| 311 | Toral ID: 541029611 Mon, Jan 30, 2006, 17:58 |
I tend to agree with one of Bobbitt's points:A president does have an obligation to assess the constitutionality of statutes, but when he secretly decides a measure is unconstitutional and neglects to say so (much less why), he undermines the very system of public consent for which we are fighting.That is, it is an undisputed power of the President to refuse to enforce or have the Executive branch abide by statutes he considers unconstitutional. (The courts may eventually rule otherwise; that is his risk.) But if nobody knows what statutes or parts of statutes he believes unconstitutional, or what he is doing as a result of that conclusion, a part of the process is missing somewhere. I was thinking the other day how this shows the foolishness of liberals' objecting to presidential signing statements. Signing statements put out forthrightly what the Executive Branch think of a Congressional act. They make it easier, not harder, for those who disagree to challenge the Executive Branch interpretation in the courts. Of course President Bush didn't sign FISA, so this wouldn't have helped there. You could require presidents to state the whole panoply of congressional restrictions on executive power they deem unconstitutional, but that seems to me just creating a lot of useless busywork for DoJ lawyers. Some other solution is needed. Toral | ||||||
| 312 | Boldwin ID: 49626249 Tue, Jan 31, 2006, 05:22 |
Thank you for that magnificent find, Mark L. I could hardly hope to have found a single source that so well justified the angle of attack I have taken in this thread based on precious little revealed facts in this affair. Beyond a well earned I told you so, I've been meaning to bring up one of my favorite Bible descriptions of our time. It says that the nations would be led like bulls with rings thru their noses to Armageddon. The technology and datamining I and Bobbit have been describing is at the same time irresistably desirable, and ineluctably drawing us into 1984-style dictatorial power of government over the lives of people. There is no stopping it. | ||||||
| 313 | Tree ID: 2405315 Tue, Jan 31, 2006, 06:09 |
next time i get busted for speeding, i'll be sure to let the cop know he's full of crap, and speeding laws are outdated. i'll also let him know that "nah, i'm not interested i getting the law changed. i can't really talk about it either...sorry..." | ||||||
| 314 | sarge33rd ID: 2511422414 Tue, Jan 31, 2006, 07:58 |
It says that the nations would be led like bulls with rings thru their noses to Armageddon. and shrub is currently tugging on the lead rope, while you and others meekly fall into step. | ||||||
| 315 | soxzeitgeist ID: 911541714 Mon, Feb 06, 2006, 14:25 |
Just as an interesting sidebar for all of those who are proponents/defenders of the Administration's stance that they absolutely must have the authority to wiretap and surveil because FISA doesn't give them enough authority or is too restrictive; since 2000, Bush and Co. have made 6650 requests of the Court, and 6646 have been approved. Clearly the NSA doesn't need it's spying program for any legitimate purposes. | ||||||
| 316 | Perm Dude Dude ID: 030792616 Mon, Feb 06, 2006, 14:53 | As I recall, sox, two of those rejections were for simple procedural problems that the court sent back for correction. When corrected, the warrants were approved. | ||||||
| 317 | Fillmore ID: 251781 Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 03:00 |
I wonder if any evidence in the hockey gambling case was gathered under this illegal spying? If other people quit covering up Bush's mistakes, George would end up busting himself or his dad on one of these corruption cases. Actually he did when Karl Rove leaked the name of the Democratic US spy to the media. This is a fake conversation that never took place. president George Bush beedily stares at the wrong camera and weakly states, 'I will fire whosever leaked the name of that CIA coperative to the media.' late that day back at the whitehouse, George gets a talking to from Karl Rove. "George, I told you that I did it. We agreed to ID the operative. Don't you remember?" ??? ??? 'Oh, that was us, huh?' ??? 'Well does that mean I have to fire you, Karl?' "No George, you don't have to fire me. It means that we might have a serious problem on our hands!" 'Oh good, I could never fire you Karl, cuz I don't know how to do any of this world domination stuff without you. I'm so glad daddy has you here helpin me' "I know George. Now don't go doing anything dumb George. I'll take car of it." ??? ??? 'Take care of what?' "Just shutup sign these governemt contracts for Dick and his buddies at Haliburton" ??? ??? ??? ??? 'Well can I still fire someone?' "Yes George, you can go fire someone" 'Karl, I'm hungry. Can we fire someone in the lunchroom?' And this guy thinks he has to save us from ourselves? | ||||||
| 318 | sarge33rd ID: 480323118 Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 13:39 | How do you know that discussion never took place? | ||||||
| 319 | Pancho Villa ID: 519522811 Wed, Feb 08, 2006, 17:34 |
Republican calls for wiretap inquiry A House Republican whose subcommittee oversees the National Security Agency broke ranks with the White House on Tuesday and called for a full Congressional inquiry into the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program. The lawmaker, Representative Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico, chairwoman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, said in an interview that she had "serious concerns" about the surveillance program. By withholding information about its operations from many lawmakers, she said, the administration has deepened her apprehension about whom the agency is monitoring and why. Ms. Wilson, who was a National Security Council aide in the administration of President Bush's father, is the first Republican on either the House's Intelligence Committee or the Senate's to call for a full Congressional investigation into the program, in which the N.S.A. has been eavesdropping without warrants on the international communications of people inside the United States believed to have links with terrorists. The congresswoman's discomfort with the operation appears to reflect deepening fissures among Republicans over the program's legal basis and political liabilities. Many Republicans have strongly backed President Bush's power to use every tool at his disposal to fight terrorism, but 4 of the 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voiced concerns about the program at a hearing where Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified on Monday. A growing number of Republicans have called in recent days for Congress to consider amending federal wiretap law to address the constitutional issues raised by the N.S.A. operation. | ||||||
| 320 | Boldwin ID: 49626249 Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 06:28 |
Jane Harman [highest ranking Dem on the Senate select intelligence committee] who is one of a handful of people outside the NSA who actually knows what this is actually all about says [in a Fox interview]... 1) the program is highly valuable and she can't imagine not taking advantage of it... 2) thinks the leaks are tragic and compromise the ability to have congressional oversight because what responsible person would share critical intelligence with leakers? 3) thinks FISA could and should have been applied. [to my surprise] | ||||||
| 321 | sarge33rd ID: 2511422414 Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 06:59 | all of which, I agree with. Upshot being, shrub needs to get the arrants. | ||||||
| 322 | Perm Dude Dude ID: 030792616 Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 10:32 | I agree. It's not clear where the leaks came from, but it certainly is clear that not all in Congress are leakers. I wouldn't paint all of Congress with that broad brush, then, but would deal with informing strictly the leadership of Congress when the need to inform them arises. | ||||||
| 323 | Boldwin ID: 49626249 Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 10:53 | The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence already pares down the informed to a select few, but you dems still can't keep a secret. | ||||||
| 324 | Perm Dude Dude ID: 030792616 Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 10:54 | Is that right? You know who the leaker is? | ||||||
| 325 | Boldwin ID: 49626249 Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 10:57 | If it aint a Dem it's a RINO. Same badness. | ||||||
| 326 | Perm Dude Dude ID: 030792616 Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 11:05 |
Your ability to stridently declare that only your distinctions are important distinctions (and do so loudly, witout compromise) continue to amaze me. Another dead end, this thread. Even when there is agreement you make sure to leave yourself space to be alone. | ||||||
| 327 | Pancho Villa ID: 519522811 Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 11:24 |
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence already pares down the informed to a select few, but you dems still can't keep a secret. Why should it be kept a secret? Whoever the whistleblower is should be commended for exposing a program that is constitutionally flawed, as well as highly suspect as to effectiveness. While Bush publicly pronounces that this program has thwarted terrorist attacks, he can't point to one single arrest that supports this claim. Instead, he publicly proclaims that a terrorist attack in 2002 using hijacked planes and shoe bombs to take down the tallest building in Los Angeles was averted in one of the lamest attempts at distraction ever seen from this administration, since it turns out that this plot never got beyond the discussion stage, and if it was thwarted, it was thanks to the Malaysian government, devoid of any wiretapping or even hands on US intelligence work. | ||||||
| 328 | Boldwin ID: 49626249 Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 12:01 |
PV That's the way you see that committee working is it? Take an oath of secrecy and an oath to protect the country and then leak any secret program you disagree with. And PD wonders why no one trusts dems with national security. | ||||||
| 329 | Tree ID: 16134117 Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 12:13 |
because people trust the Republicans lately? come on Baldwin, open your eyes. there is so little trust in this government now, that barely a year after he was elected, your saviour and fellow faux-Christian GW Bush has a shockingly low approval rating. and more people want the Dems to take control over Congress than want the Republicans to stay in power. what does that say about who the people trust? | ||||||
| 330 | Pancho Villa ID: 519522811 Sat, Feb 11, 2006, 12:46 |
leak any secret program you disagree with No, just the ones that are illegal and have not produced one shred of evidence to be effective. I'm sorry, but I don't take this administration's claims to be "protecting us" as sincere, based on past performance. no one trusts dems with national security. By no one, you are referring to a small group of demagogues who think an 8% increase in the defense budget is necessary even though there is no threat from any opposing foreign military? It's about economics, not security and certainly not defense. | ||||||
| 331 | soxzeitgeist@work ID: 361143289 Sun, Feb 12, 2006, 14:09 |
| ||||||
| 332 | Seattle Zen ID: 46315247 Fri, May 26, 2006, 10:56 |
| ||||||
| 333 | Perm Dude ID: 1553258 Tue, Jun 06, 2006, 10:31 | Funny Walt Handelsman animated cartoon | ||||||
| 334 | Wilmer McLean ID: 6426821 Thu, May 10, 2007, 00:55 |
Village Voice: Having Won a Pulitzer for Exposing Data Mining, Times Now Eager to Do Its Own Data MiningBarely a year after their reporters won a Pulitzer prize for exposing data mining of ordinary citizens by a government spy agency, New York Times officials had some exciting news for stockholders last week: The Times company plans to do its own data mining of ordinary citizens, in the name of online profits. | ||||||
| 335 | Perm Dude ID: 44727169 Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 12:45 | 9th Circuit Court laughs in the face of the Administration's argument of "Just trust us." | ||||||
| 336 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 454491514 Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 19:18 |
334 For those who don't see the difference between a private company and the government conducting data mining, the NYT doesn't claim the authority to imprison you, refuse your right to due process, torture you and/or prosecute you under tribunal. | ||||||
| 337 | Perm Dude ID: 44727169 Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 20:03 | Also, they aren't the same things--the data mining the times is doing is digging through and collating public information. The data the government is mining is mostly private information they have either gleaned from telecommunications companies breaking privacy agreements or private communication harvested by the government without benefit of judicial oversight. | ||||||
| 338 | Perm Dude ID: 22740208 Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 19:52 |
Congress' role, it seems, is just "advisory." This piece should be required reading of Democratic lawmakers. They really need to stop believing that the Administration is "bargaining," let alone in "good faith." The Administration is going to do what it wants, and laws don't matter. | ||||||
| 339 | Wilmer McLean ID: 3671520 Tue, Aug 21, 2007, 01:43 |
RE: 336 The fact that the NY Times neglected to mention their own data mining in their articles is hyprocirsy enough. (Authority to do whatever after is another matter,) One data-mined for profit. The other mined for national security. Which is more noble? Also, the NY Times doesn't torture??? Are you reading the same editorials as I? ;) | ||||||
| 340 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Thu, Sep 06, 2007, 14:00 |
Thank God for the ACLU! A federal judge struck down parts of the revised USA Patriot Act on Thursday, saying investigators must have a court's approval before they can order Internet providers to turn over records without telling customers. | ||||||
| 341 | Baldwin ID: 125312919 Thu, Sep 06, 2007, 23:55 | The Aclu will be happy to disabuse you of the idea that they are God's gift to anyone. | ||||||
| 342 | Perm Dude ID: 46827610 Thu, Sep 06, 2007, 23:59 | Only if it is the government saying it. | ||||||
| 343 | Baldwin ID: 125312919 Fri, Sep 07, 2007, 00:27 | "the Number One religious censor in America" | ||||||
| 344 | Seattle Zen ID: 86541617 Fri, Sep 07, 2007, 00:38 |
Okay, Baldwin, let me ask you a question: Do you agree with the Federal judge that the Government must get a warrant through the judiciary before they can order an internet provider to disclose a citizen's information, or did you like the provision of the Patriot Act that allowed the Justice Department the ability to demand the info of any suspect, no warrant needed? | ||||||
| 345 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Fri, Sep 07, 2007, 15:02 |
The Aclu will be happy to disabuse you of the idea that they are God's gift to anyone. The truest irony here? The only reason Baldwin can disgree and spew forth his maniacal concepts, is BECAUSE of the ACLUs efforts to preserve Free Speech. | ||||||
| 346 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Fri, Sep 07, 2007, 16:19 |
The eerie silence filling the room, with the exception of the sound of Badwin's jaw hitting the floor, comes from the hard to believe, but oh so very true, fact that a right that he holds very dear, freedom from governmental surveillance, was protected by the American Civil Liberties Union. Donations can be sent here: ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Of course Baldwin will not only fail to make a donation, he won't give them any credit, because he is far too proud to admit he may be wrong about the ACLU. What is the Christian doctrine on pride, anyways, Baldy? | ||||||
| 347 | Seattle Zen ID: 86541617 Sat, Sep 08, 2007, 11:33 | Your silence is speaking volumes, Baldwin. Not even a pathetic, "I'm retired" canard... | ||||||
| 348 | Perm Dude ID: 12325168 Thu, Apr 16, 2009, 12:02 | NSA tried to wiretap a Member of Congress without a warrant | ||||||
| 349 | Baldwin ID: 553441513 Fri, Apr 17, 2009, 04:16 | A better question is 'why didn't they get a warrant'? Sounds like they had just cause. Then again they are calling the republican base terrorists now days, so who can say if they have a case just because they call him a terrorist? | ||||||
| 350 | Mith Dude ID: 01629107 Fri, Apr 17, 2009, 07:55 |
Then again they are calling the republican base terrorists now days, so who can say if they have a case just because they call him a terrorist? No, they're not. | ||||||
| 351 | Perm Dude ID: 24321178 Fri, Apr 17, 2009, 09:31 |
#349: They certainly are not. I'm not exactly clear on what you mean by "better question." That is exactly the question being raised. The NSA did not get a warrant (and probably could not have) and yet they tried to do so against a Member. That NY Times piece is stunning. | ||||||
| 352 | dwetzel on BB ID: 590182120 Fri, Apr 17, 2009, 09:32 |
Actually, isn't Eric Rudolph what Boldwin thinks the Republican base should consist of? | ||||||
| 353 | Tree ID: 41371322 Fri, Apr 17, 2009, 10:14 |
A better question is 'why didn't they get a warrant'? Sounds like they had just cause. that's the point, actually. Then again they are calling the republican base terrorists now days, so who can say if they have a case just because they call him a terrorist? there you go with: 1. "they" again. who are "they" this time?" 2. making your post seem, well, loony. first part of the most was the obvious question (and the one being asked), but the second part made it seem like it was just some mad, nonsensical ramblings. | ||||||
| 354 | Baldwin ID: 553441513 Fri, Apr 17, 2009, 10:23 |
No, they're not. They certainly are not. The list of indicators homeland security came up with includes things that would put every republican and every returning veteran for that matter, on their terrorist watch list. | ||||||
| 355 | Tree ID: 41371322 Fri, Apr 17, 2009, 11:00 |
your tin foil hat is channeling for you again. i would ask if you seriously believe what you're typing, but in your paranoia and ignorance, you do. | ||||||
| 356 | Perm Dude ID: 24321178 Fri, Apr 17, 2009, 11:36 |
#354: I realize that this must shock you, but there actually exist right-wing terror groups in this country. This doesn't mean that all vets or even all wingers are terrorists, and no one has said so. | ||||||
| 357 | Boxman ID: 29351011 Fri, Apr 17, 2009, 12:50 | If a bumper sticker or protest sign is used to help mark someone as part of a group how is that different from racial profiling? | ||||||
| 358 | Perm Dude ID: 24321178 Fri, Apr 17, 2009, 13:00 | Uh, race? | ||||||
| 359 | Perm Dude ID: 24321178 Fri, Apr 17, 2009, 13:01 | I always knew the Right would get on the civil rights bandwagon only when they became the targets of the surveillance apparatus they applauded into being. | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||