The NSA

[point]

I am surprised no-one has brought this up. We have a president who doesn't want judges making laws, but hasn't the slightest compunction about making up his own rules. I can't believe he can't find one of the eleven (isn't this 3 in each time zone?) FISA Court judges to rubber stamp the warrants he needs. This is just lazy law enforcement.

His lame argument that "terrorism is different now" doesn't convince me. Where was he in the sixtys and seventys when the Weathermen, SLA, Black Panthers etc were bombing Wall Street, the Univ of Wisconsin and dozens of other places? Heck, when I was in college in 1968, a few black guys came into my dorm, set up a movie screen and projector, and showed film of a "black army" armed and ready to rise up from the ghettoes to lead the revolution.

Technology has changed, but the rules about warrants are easier now, because airwaves are not protected from wiretaps like hard wire phones. This should make it EASIER, not harder for the NSA to do its job. I simply am not sold. But I wasn't sold on the Al Quaeda-Saddam link either.

[Devils731]

DP

Edited December 22, 2005 by Devils731

[Devils731]

Check this out if you think this i really unusual.

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

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

That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.

More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.

----------

Those are just some samples from in there.

Also, I think nobody has brought it up because most people see that this is just politics since things like this have been done for a long time by Presidents. Dems calling for impeachments and such over this will just look silly so everyone has just dropped it now that they've realized that not only is this not a serious transgression but that it is also legal.

[PeteyNice]

I totally disagree. I think Republicans would like it to "just go away" but the news that I read and watch still make this a big story, which it is. I have not seen any leagl justification other than "We can do whatever we want neener neener" which does not fly with me. The searches that Clinton authorized were done before the law was changed to include them. What Bush did was an appalling power grab that was totally unnecessary. FISA courts almost never refuse warrants and allow for a 72 hour window before a warrant is required. And hell, the way the congress is constituted they could have rolled it into the Patriot Act.

What scares me is that the NY Times sat on this story for over a year. I wonder what other secret civil-liberty slashing things they are doing right now.

[GA Devil]

What scares me is that the NY Times sat on this story for over a year. I wonder what other secret civil-liberty slashing things they are doing right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Until minds with more legal experise than my own determine if this domestic spying was/is legal or constitutional, this is the item that pisses me off the most. Who knows how that might have effected the election if the public was actually *gasp* informed.

[Jimmy Leeds]

It's so typical that when Carter and Clinton do the very same thing, it is excused by our inherently liberal friends here. But when (the new moniker) King Bush does it, it's an impeachable offense.

It's so predictable it's laughable.

And it's a shame that the Dems care more about slamming Bush then national security and their toady henchmen in the New York Times help hurt out country.

BTW, they held the story to coincide with the authors new book coming out.

[PeteyNice]

As I said what Clinton and Bush did are not the same thing, not even close. Clinton was also very upfront with what they were doing unlike Bush's super secret policy.

What the NY Times did was great for this country. It would have been better if they had released it when they found out about it but that's another story. I take my civil liberties very seriously. As Ben Franklin said:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither.

Never more meaningful than today.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Keep your head in the sand and in all your zealotry keep going after the one guy trying to protect us.

[point]

What I find baffling is that these legal opinions are burried in books someplace, but the ONLY document that plain folks have is the Constitution, which simply states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing teh place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Unlike the second amendment, the fourth is pretty clear about what it means. At the time the Constitution was written, a lot of Americans were not safe from Indian attacks. The framers did not think the federal government should be given unlimited power to "protect us". FISA was meant to provide adequate protection of the people from the government. It is first the responsibility of the citizenry to protect themselves, not the government's. I don't need some power hungry, do-gooder in the White House to think up ways to help me. Call these guys liberals or conservatives, I don't want them in my business.

Just because everybody else does it doesn't make it right. Clinton didn't do a very good job of protecting us either, I might add.

I just don't see the big deal about calling up a judge and getting a warrant. FISA already lets the NSA listen for 72 hours before they have to ask for the warrant anyway. The NSDA doesn't have to wake a judge up in the middle of the night or anything. I've been with a judge who issued restraining orders while we were surf kayaking.

Just my random thoughts.

Merry Christmas all!

[MantaRay]

Sounds more like cold war Russia than the US

[Jimmy Leeds]

It is first the responsibility of the citizenry to protect themselves, not the government's.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree. How am I going to protect myself from a homicide/suicide bomber at the Freehold Raceway Mall when I'm their wth my kids? Or from a diry bomb in Times Square when I'm Christmas Shopping with the family?

It is the Presidents main responsibility to protect us, and what the New York Times did was treasonous.

[LetsGoDevils]

Sounds like a President using his legal Presidential power to defend the United States as a Commander in Chief.

[LizDevil30]

As Ben Franklin said:  "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither."

So true. I guess Patrick Henry's words would be laughed at today, "Give me liberty or give me death."

Every time a civil liberty, a freedom, that was fought for and died for is violated in the name of "protecting citizens from terrorism" is really just another win for the terrorists. Sad to think that all those soldiers died for naught. Love the line from Braveheart, "Every man dies, but not every man truly lives."

I too want safety but not at all costs.

As always, JMHO.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Gee Liz, what "freedoms" have you lost?

Betcha can't name one.

I haven't lost any........but then again, I haven't been on the phone with Al-Quaeda, have you?

I guess you want them free to plot more terror here so you don't lose any more of your "freedoms".

[StarDew]

All this Clinton and Carter did it...show me where either of them used this so called "authority" to snoop on citizens like the Quaker group of mostly senior citizens who are peace activists at a meeting...they were discussing has been happening in the peace aspect of the world btw... most of them were knitting at this meeting and yet they are a in a report labeled as a threat to this country????? 15 Quakers!!! This administration is the worst in years. Takes a surplus and creates a deficit that will affect generations and I mean generations. I guess in the interest of today, folks with children will have their great great grandchildren still paying for the actions of this administratio. Bush takes things to extremes. McCarthy pales in comparison to this guy's total control concept. Sneak and peek??? No President has the right to snoop on its citizens for the means of trying to make a case where there is none. Calls were monitored in and out of this country as well as within...Bush contradicts himself that at the next press conference he will wear his waffle suit...sheesh

Bushie cannot even speak with proper use of words...he constantly uses got when have is correct. Such an illiterate. Wonder how folks will feel when they get hit with the AMT. <sigh> I digress...let me leave this forum...next post may be by the one who likes to make untrue digs...learns well from his role model of a President.

[LizDevil30]

I guess Nixon was ahead of his time.

Jimmy, you're a cop and because of that I think you can't look at this in the same light as the rest of us. Remember absolute power corrupts absolutely. KGB anyone?

[Jimmy Leeds]

All this Clinton and Carter did it...show me where either of them used this so called "authority" to snoop on citizens like the Quaker group of mostly senior citizens who are peace activists at a meeting...they were discussing has been happening in the peace aspect of the world  btw... most of them were knitting at this meeting and yet they are a in a report labeled as a threat to this country?????  15 Quakers!!!  This administration is the worst in years.  Takes a surplus and creates a deficit that will affect generations and I mean generations.  I guess in the interest of today, folks with children will have their great great grandchildren still paying for the actions of this administratio. Bush takes things to extremes. McCarthy pales in comparison to this guy's total control concept.  Sneak and peek???  No President has the right to snoop on its citizens for the means of  trying to make a case where there is none.  Calls were monitored in and out of this country as well as within...Bush contradicts himself that at the next press conference he will wear his waffle suit...sheesh

Bushie cannot even speak with proper use of words...he constantly uses got when have is correct.  Such an illiterate.  Wonder how folks will feel when they get hit with the AMT.  <sigh> I digress...let me leave this forum...next post may be by the one who likes to make untrue digs...learns well from his role model of a President.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anybody have a cuckoo smilie?

[Jimmy Leeds]

Bushie cannot even speak with proper use of words...he constantly uses got when have is correct.  Such an illiterate. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you use proper English when you say, " I have received my governmental subsidy check", as opposed to, "I got my welfare check"?

Impressive.

[LetsGoDevils]

Sounds more like cold war Russia than the US

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Son, we live in a world that has phones. And those phones have to be monitored by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, MantaRay? Bush has a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Sheehan and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what he knows: that Sheehan's Swiftboating, while tragic, probably saved GOP political lives. And Bush's re-election, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties(FBI has you taped), you want Bush on that phone lines. You need him on that NSA hotline. The GOP uses words like unpatriotic, traitorious, swiftboating...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defeating Dems. You use 'em as a punchline. Bush has neither the time nor the vocabulary to explain himself to a natiion who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom his policies provide, then questions the manner in which he provides it! He'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you hang up the phone and just start writing letters. Either way, he doesn't give a damn what freedoms you think you're entitled to!

[Jimmy Leeds]

What a great post Jack.

[devildave00]

Just remember this, the enemy doesn't play by the rules. They would kill us at the drop of a hat. Lets not give them a chance. The only people who should worry are those who are doing something wrong.

[Jimmy Leeds]

There are a lot of left wingers that don't get that, they just want Bush embarrassed, at ANY cost.

[PeteyNice]

Just remember this, the enemy doesn't play by the rules.  They would kill us at the drop of a hat.  Lets not give them a chance.  The only people who should worry are those who are doing something wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We are supposed to be better than the enemy. If you stoop to their level you are no better than they are. And when you break the law you stoop to their level. The ends do not justify the means.

[Jimmy Leeds]

We are supposed to be better than the enemy. If you stoop to their level you are no better than they are. And when you break the law you stoop to their level. The ends do not justify the means.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are certifiable.

[GA Devil]

I'm curious as to what about Pete's statement makes him certifiable.