Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jimmy Leeds

Finally, An Honest Liberal

43 posts in this topic

http://justice.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_060206.html

----------

The critical advantage offered by the terrorist surveillance program compared to FISA is who makes the probable cause determination and how many layers of review must occur before surveillance begins. Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called "emergency authorizations" of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There is a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. We do not and cannot approve emergency surveillance under FISA without knowing that we meet FISA's normal requirements. In order to authorize emergency surveillance under FISA, the Attorney General must personally "determine[] that . . . the factual basis for issuance of an order under [FISA] to approve such surveillance exists." 50 U.S.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they are saying they can't use the 72 hour case because you have to follow certain guidelines which may take too long to go through.......It looks to me like you can't use that process after the fact unless you initiate the process at the start, which they feel can take too long....(notice cool use of way too many punctuations)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, they are saying they can't use the 72 hour case because you have to follow certain guidelines which may take too long to go through.......It looks to me like you can't use that process after the fact unless you initiate the process at the start, which they feel can take too long....(notice cool use of way too many punctuations)

It's not just the process, they are pretty clear that they don't like that part about actually having to establish the probable cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, they are saying they can't use the 72 hour case because you have to follow certain guidelines which may take too long to go through.......It looks to me like you can't use that process after the fact unless you initiate the process at the start, which they feel can take too long....(notice cool use of way too many punctuations)

But then why didn't they try to revise the law? Why weren't they candid with Congress about what they were up to? If what they were doing was so reasonable, why did they have to hide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't have to revise the law because the law already provided the means to allow them to do the intelligence gathering as they needed. You don't go and discuss with a police officer if you're allowed to go when the light turns green because you know you are allowed, same case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They didn't have to revise the law because the law already provided the means to allow them to do the intelligence gathering as they needed. You don't go and discuss with a police officer if you're allowed to go when the light turns green because you know you are allowed, same case here.

Only if you think the President can do anything he wants because, well, he's the President.

Seriously, do you really think they are only listening to international calls and that they are only listening for people talking to known AQ suspects????

They know how to use data mining, it's a vast data mining operation, they can fish for ANYTHING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I say the President can do anything he wants because he is the president? Someone else already tried to make this into "well if they can do this what else can they do" arguement when the arguement should only be can he do this. I seriously do think almost all of the surveillance has to do with protecting this country. Will there be mistakes? Yes there will, but there are mistakes made at banks and I still keep my money there.(darn, forgot to add all the extra punctuations this time)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a bank makes a mistake, I know about it and have recourse. If they make a mistake noone ever knows.

You have much more faith in our government than I do. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and without any oversight at all that is what we have here.

Whether every call involved an Al Queda person or not is immaterial. It was still illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did I say the President can do anything he wants because he is the president? Someone else already tried to make this into "well if they can do this what else can they do" arguement when the arguement should only be can he do this. I seriously do think almost all of the surveillance has to do with protecting this country. Will there be mistakes? Yes there will, but there are mistakes made at banks and I still keep my money there.(darn, forgot to add all the extra punctuations this time)

You said they didn't revise the law because the law already allows them to do the intelligence gathering as needed. But they say FISA doesn't allow them to do it, and you posted a very long explaination as to why. And the reason they give for why he do what the HELL he wants and not tell anyone about it is, he's the President. He said he consulted his Personal lawyer and his Attorney General, both of whom will tell him ANYTHING he wants to hear, and you KNOW it.

Well, that may be a bit unfair to the AG. He might not tell Bush that abortion is unconstitutional. But that is the ONLY thing he would tell Bush that he wouldn't want to hear.

So please explain to me again why your reasoning isn't that he can just do anything he wants because he is the President. Because that's exactly what this is turning into.

If a bank makes a mistake, I know about it and have recourse. If they make a mistake noone ever knows.

You have much more faith in our government than I do. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and without any oversight at all that is what we have here.

Whether every call involved an Al Queda person or not is immaterial. It was still illegal.

Well, actually, if every call involved an AQ person on the other end they would have had a good case for probable cause and the FISA warrent would have been a slam dunk. So the only excuse for this would have been incredible sloth on the part of the Administration.

Edited by SueNJ97

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law provides the legal reason they were allowed not to go through FISA is what it explains.

Go ahead and read all this like I did:

http://justice.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_060206.html

I'm done on this topic because it is starting to go in a circle now and I don't like discussing things where people act as if everything is completely ridiculous. You don't really want my opinion or answers on these topics, you just want to state how stupid and ridiculous it is that anyone couldn't agree with you.(shoot, I didn't get words in all caps or extra punctuations)

Well, actually, if every call involved an AQ person on the other end they would have had a good case for probable cause and the FISA warrent would have been a slam dunk. So the only excuse for this would have been incredible sloth on the part of the Administration.

One last thing since I read this before I left: Even with an AQ person on the other end they couldn't go through FISA since they want to start the surveillance before getting the AG approval etc. which you read before. Once they don't do that step then they can't use the 72 hour FISA process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't like FISA, change it! I mean after 9/11 congress would have given Bush anything he wanted, but they didn't. They instead chose to simply ignore the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The law provides the legal reason they were allowed not to go through FISA is what it explains.

Go ahead and read all this like I did:

http://justice.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_060206.html

I'm done on this topic because it is starting to go in a circle now and I don't like discussing things where people act as if everything is completely ridiculous. You don't really want my opinion or answers on these topics, you just want to state how stupid and ridiculous it is that anyone couldn't agree with you.(shoot, I didn't get words in all caps or extra punctuations)

One last thing since I read this before I left: Even with an AQ person on the other end they couldn't go through FISA since they want to start the surveillance before getting the AG approval etc. which you read before. Once they don't do that step then they can't use the 72 hour FISA process.

You are relying exclusively on arguments from the people who are probably breaking the law, which is problematic.

Before you leave, can you answer one thing for me, pretty please, since you ignored it before? If this all well and good, why weren't they candid with Congress about what was going on? Why did they have to hide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are relying exclusively on arguments from the people who are probably breaking the law, which is problematic.

Before you leave, can you answer one thing for me, pretty please, since you ignored it before? If this all well and good, why weren't they candid with Congress about what was going on? Why did they have to hide?

I actually did address it. They weren't doing anything that needed approval from congress so they didn't go and get the approval from congress. The was my point about you not asking a police officer if you can go when the light turn greens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The law provides the legal reason they were allowed not to go through FISA is what it explains.

Go ahead and read all this like I did:

http://justice.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_060206.html

I'm done on this topic because it is starting to go in a circle now and I don't like discussing things where people act as if everything is completely ridiculous. You don't really want my opinion or answers on these topics, you just want to state how stupid and ridiculous it is that anyone couldn't agree with you.(shoot, I didn't get words in all caps or extra punctuations)

One last thing since I read this before I left: Even with an AQ person on the other end they couldn't go through FISA since they want to start the surveillance before getting the AG approval etc. which you read before. Once they don't do that step then they can't use the 72 hour FISA process.

I looked at it and I told you before, I didn't agree with Gorelick either. If you are going to point to something Gonzalez raises using her argument as the standard, I'm still not going to agree with you. But I could be much more sensitive to all of this because I've got a parent who's lived through being declared an enemy of the state for no reason, who's had his family hunted down for no reason, who's seen what it means to have the entire power of a state used against you for no reason. And in the beginning, everyone said they had no reason to fear if they didn't do anything wrong. Sound familiar??? So no, I don't automatically trust any government when they tell me they are doing things for my good. And I'll never give up my right to question what my government does.

So now even contact with an AQ member isn't enough probable cause to get the AG to approve the process and get a FISA warrent??? Are these people just to lazy to do their work??? Or are they too busy going through the data mining results???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually did address it. They weren't doing anything that needed approval from congress so they didn't go and get the approval from congress. The was my point about you not asking a police officer if you can go when the light turn greens.

Did I say get Congressional approval? No, I did not. I asked, if you buy the administration's arguments about how all this is fine, why not be candid with Congress about it? Gonzalez had the opportunity to be at his confirmation hearing:

In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commander-In-Chief

OF THE ARMED FORCES, not the American citizenry.

And it especially doesn't work when Bush LIED when he said that no American citizen was under surveilance without a warrent. He's only on TAPE saying it. But apparently nobody CARES when they are outright lied to about what their own government is doing to them.

People only care about lies when a Democrat is in office, and in that case they will pick out trivial lies that don't even come close to affecting national security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As opposed to "lies" to protect American security?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an additional piece of info as the story evolves:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/08/D8FLB3P0E.html

White House Gives Details on Surveillance

By KATHERINE SHRADER

Associated Press Writer

After weeks of insisting it would not reveal details of its eavesdropping without warrants, the White House reversed course Wednesday and provided a House committee with highly classified information about the operation.

The White House has been under heavy pressure from lawmakers who wanted more information about the National Security Agency's monitoring. Democrats and many Republicans rejected the administration's contention that they could not be trusted with national security secrets.

The shift came the same day Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., announced he is drafting legislation that would require the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the administration's monitoring program and determine if it is constitutional.

It also came after Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., chairwoman of a House intelligence subcommittee that oversees the NSA, broke with the Bush administration and called for a full review of the NSA's program, along with legislative action to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

She and others also wanted the full House Intelligence Committee to be briefed on the program's operational details. Although the White House initially promised only information about the legal rationale for surveillance, administration officials broadened the scope Wednesday to include more sensitive details about how the program works.

"I think we've had a tremendous impact today," Wilson said at a news conference as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Gen. Michael Hayden, the nation's No. 2 intelligence official, briefed the full Intelligence Committee.

"I don't think the White House would have made the decision that it did had I not stood up and said, 'You must brief the Intelligence Committee,'" said Wilson, a U.S. Air Force veteran.

When asked what prompted the move to give lawmakers more details, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the administration has stated "from the beginning that we will work with members of Congress, and we will continue to do so regarding this vital national security program."

Questions from Congress about the monitoring abound. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., sent a letter to Gonzales with 51 questions he wants answered by early March.

As part of his upcoming bill, Specter said he wants the FISA court to review the program to weigh the nature of the terrorist threat, the program's scope, the number of people being monitored and how the information is being handled. If the judges find the program unconstitutional, he said the administration should make changes.

"The president should have all the tools he needs to fight terrorism, but we also want to maintain our civil liberties," Specter said.

At least one Democrat left the four-hour House Intelligence Committee session saying he had a better understanding of legal and operational aspects of the anti-terrorist surveillance program, being conducted without warrants. But he said he still had a number of questions.

"It's a different program than I was beginning to let myself believe," said Alabama Rep. Bud Cramer, the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee's oversight subcommittee.

"This may be a valuable program," Cramer said, adding that he didn't know if it was legal. "My direction of thinking was changed tremendously."

Still, Cramer said, some members remain angry and frustrated, and he didn't know why the White House waited so long to inform Congress of its actions.

Lawmakers leaving the briefing said it covered the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Justice Department papers outlining legal justifications for the operations, limited details on success stories and some highly sensitive details.

The White House has insisted that it has the legal authority to monitor terror-related international communications in cases in which one party to the call is in the United States.

For more than 50 days, senior officials have argued that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were within the law when they chose to brief only the eight lawmakers who lead the House and Senate and their intelligence committees.

In a PBS interview Tuesday, Cheney said that if all 70 members of the House and Senate intelligence committees were briefed over the program's four years, "it's not a good way to keep a secret."

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., one of the eight fully briefed, said he still knows more about the program than the rest of the committee. But, he said, "there is very little left to the imagination" of those members who attended the briefing.

Said California Rep. Jane Harman, the panel's top Democrat, "The ice is melting, and we are making progress."

While Harman continues to support the program, she said she remains uncomfortable with the administration's legal justification. Harman said she believes the administration should have used the court processes set up under the FISA law and gotten warrants before eavesdropping on Americans.

Wilson, Harman and other committee members want to hold hearings on that law to review whether it should be updated. Hoekstra said he was open to hearings on the law but said such a review has "nothing to do" with the president's program.

-------

Maybe this should be split off since it really doesn't have much to do with the original topic of the thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0