Calling home to the USA? Say hi to Big Brother George!

Politics International Politics
61

Is it unreasonable to try and wire tap people who may be planning to blow things up?

hmm, let me think.[/quote]

First, no one is saying George Bush shouldn’t go after terrorists.

Second, is it unreasonable to go through the proper legal channels and submit a request for a warrant up to 72 hours after doing the wiretap? I just don’t see how following the rules set by FISA could be problematic unless of course the requests for warrants would be rejected.[/quote]

OK, fine. I’ll buy that. But this is AFTER a target has been identified. How would the target be identified? [/quote]

That begs the question - How is the target of a warrantless wiretap identified? Is the method of choosing a target dependent upon whether the subsequent wiretap is to be done with or without a warrant? Or are you suggesting that this is an acceptable starting point of identifying targets?

The govt should identify these wiretap targets like any other suspect: by other means. That is to say the authorities can provide evidence that suggests a person is doing something wrong or they can provide testimony from other people suggesting the person is doing something wrong. The FISA court has a history of issuing warrants so if the govt has a legitimate target it doesn’t seem that it would take a whole lot to convince the court to issue a warrant.

I prefer to use George Bush because the warrantless wiretaps were authorized by him and there seem to be people who believe that by criticising Bush’s decision to circumvent the law that it is also a suggestion that getting terrorists is not a concern of the critics. Also, other presidents may decide to work within and respect the laws while still trying to get terrorists.

62

Spook, I hear you on the privacy issue. I really do. But for me, to selfishly hold one’s privacy as more important than what is going on in the world, for me, is to deny the larger picture.

There ARE people in and ouside of the USA who want to destroy the government, or at least disrupt it enough that the US will “leave them be.” Whether this is done by flying planes into buildings, inciting riots, attacking nuclear plants etc, doesn’t matter.

It’s been a looong time since US citizens were asked to sacrifice something for the greater good of their country. Wire taps on international calls and emails: Is that a greater sacrifice than food rations and meatless Friday? Face it. Your discomfort is cognitive and emotinal, not physical.

Now we can argue about the severity of the threat posed by Islamic terrorists, for sure. IMHO the threat is quite real, and the TEMPORARY sacrifice of privacy (wire taps) is worth it.

peace
jds[/quote]

JDSmith,

Would you change your mind if you knew the US already has SECRET courts in place that can provide warrants? This means that would-be terrorists (and the public) would not be alerted to the fact that surveillance is in place, and as such, would not be compromised.

The other fear, is that once this door opens, who knows what else it could be used for and by whom. Say for example, you trust Bush and today’s government to do the right thing and go after the terrorists, albeit at the cost of everyone’s privacy should they overinclude non-terrorists in the process. Fine, but what happens 2 years from now? 2 administrations from now? 50 years from now? Who knows what agency might use this open door in a utterly different fashion? Courts are there to provide oversight, so that there is a check and balance. You talk about democracy and fundamental rights, well I say, the founders knew it to be totally vital that any government does not go unchecked. That is why we have separation of powers, that is why the judiciary provides a check/balance on the executive. Just claiming that, oh let them do whatever they want, write them a blank check in the name of fighting terrorism is utterly irresponsible. That is how bad governments are allowed to spawn.

I also think you’re badly mistaken if this measure is to be TEMPORARY? Remember the INCOME TAX, that little thing we pay with every paycheck? It was a temporary war measure to support WWI effort. Remember the Phone Tax? It was a temporary war measure to support the Spanish-US war. In Government, nothing is temporary unless it costs the government (unless it benefits government’s friends)

63

Exactly, and Congress is there too. I don’t know about other Americans on this board, but my right to vote is not limited to selecting a President as I also vote for members of Congress. If the President feels that changes to current law governing search and seizure requirements are necessary in light of possible threats to the American people, fine, lobby Congress for a change in the law. But, do not ignore Congress. Meeting with a handful of Congressional leaders wasn

64

Exactly, and Congress is there too. I don’t know about other Americans on this board, but my right to vote is not limited to selecting a President as I also vote for members of Congress. If the President feels that changes to current law governing search and seizure requirements are necessary in light of possible threats to the American people, fine, lobby Congress for a change in the law. But, do not ignore Congress. Meeting with a handful of Congressional leaders wasn

65

jaboney wrote:

If it’s a no brainer, then what’s the problem? To me, you are exaggerating when you say that the government is “interferring in the lives of people” because, how is eavesdropping interferring? The IRS is not running this program. Nor are telemarketing companies.

Has Bush broken the law? Well, if there really is a case against him, take it to court. Did Clinton break the law with his pardon spree? We are talking about Presedential powers here, and the president is given these powers in case unexpected things come up during his term that require immediate action. Clearly Bush thought that the wiretaps were needed immediately. Was he wrong? If so, try and impeach him. That’s what the Courts are there for. I am not one for unlimited Presidential powers for any president.

I just don’t buy the invasion of privacy stuff. People who KNOW they did nothing wrong are circling this thing as some kind of moral and ethical Maypole. To me, this is a sign that regular people watch too many episodes of Law and Order. It’s a Macarthian scare tactic to warn people of this wireapping program by saying, “Do YOU want the government listening to ALL your phone calls, reading all your email?” because the implication is that normal people too are doing something wrong. This puts normal people on the same playing field as the terrorists, in that they too should fear the government. That’s bullshit.

Jack Burton wrote:

I never said let them do whatever they want. I am in FULL agreement with you that the way the Constitution is set up, this program will not be used in the way people are being made to fear it. I also do not believe in blank checks.

Take it to the SupremeCourt if the case for abuse of power is there.

On the issue of terrorism, I have a hard line. I might not feel what Bush did was right (I have strong feelings for privacy issues), but I do feel it was necessary.

66

JD,

I think it is a huge assumption on your part that a program like this can, effectively and without error, separate terrorists from innocent “normal” people. If that were possible, we wouldn’t need the 4th amendment, because cops would just be able to know criminals from “normal” people. I’m not saying, let’s not take a serious stance against terrorism, but as I said before, the government already wields huge power in having secret courts handing out warrants, why is there any need to go further than necessary. Please tell me what warrantless search and seizure/surveillance can do that search and seizure/surveillance authorized by warrants issued by secret courts can’t do before we discuss anything else, because unless you can give me a satisfactory answer, my argument is that you ARE giving the executive a blank check. (Admittedly, I do recall, that warrantless search/seizure has been judged constitutional, albeit in very limited circumstances, often where there is no opportunity/time to get a warrant, but I doubt that long-term surveillance would fit in that scenario. i’m fuzzy on this part, it’s been awhile). Actually, since fighting terrorism is a compelling government interest, I believe the threshold for probable cause or getting a warrant would be pretty low anyways.

67

Jack Burton wrote:

Why would I change my mind? This is what’s happening now. So, again I ask, the government is going out of its way to legitimize this thing. Is the fact that it’s “secret” what disturbs you?

[quote]
This means that would-be terrorists (and the public) would not be alerted to the fact that surveillance is in place, and as such, would not be compromised[/quote]

This would be, uh, good surveillance would it not?

People who say let’s let all the badguys KNOW what we’re doing and hope they won’t do it is about as effective as Taiwanese police cars driving around all day and night with their lights on. The bad guys see them coming a mile away and hide.

How about set up the surveillance and catch the bad guys in the act, or better yet, in the planning stages? Wait, that’s what this program is trying to do. The fact that secret courts exist is a sign that no one wants to be accused of abusing power.

just MHO
jds

68

[quote=“jdsmith”]Jack Burton wrote:

Why would I change my mind? This is what’s happening now. So, again I ask, the government is going out of its way to legitimize this thing. Is the fact that it’s “secret” what disturbs you?

[quote]
This means that would-be terrorists (and the public) would not be alerted to the fact that surveillance is in place, and as such, would not be compromised[/quote]

This would be, uh, good surveillance would it not?

People who say let’s let all the badguys KNOW what we’re doing and hope they won’t do it is about as effective as Taiwanese police cars driving around all day and night with their lights on. The bad guys see them coming a mile away and hide.

How about set up the surveillance and catch the bad guys in the act, or better yet, in the planning stages? Wait, that’s what this program is trying to do. The fact that secret courts exist is a sign that no one wants to be accused of abusing power.

just MHO
jds[/quote]

Okay, now I feel like we’re talking about different things. As I understand it, you support Bush’s decision to use warrantless surveillance techniques on persons in the U.S.

I was asking that if the gov’t already had in place secret courts which issue warrants to survey terrorists planning stuff in the US, and since you agree with me that having these secret courts would not alert terrorists to specific details, then why is it necessary to go a step further and allow warrantless surveillance categorically speaking for all anti-terrorism efforts in the US without any judicial involvement whatsoever.

I’m not sure if we’re on the same page about this from your post. Please clarify what you’re talking about.

69

Unless I’m mistaken I think we all agree on the central issue then: our phone calls and emails being monitored freely by the government in a wholesale attempt to locate the bad guys.

Many Americans obviously are willing to surrender their privacy to the government because they believe it’s necessary in order to achieve national security during a time of conflict with international terrorism.

The next question they must be willing to answer though is are they also willing to surrender the rule of law because it seems fairly clear that no law yet authorizes the executive branch to spy on its citizens at will and without limit. In fact, the law seems to forbid this.

70

What you seem to be missing is this period of national emergency will continue FOREVER if Bush has his way. He will keep inventing enemies, to keep us in a state of fear, and to keep trying to justify his rape of the constitution.
[i]
Feds after Google data

The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.

In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.[/i]

siliconvalley.com/mld/silico … 657386.htm

The porn is just a red herring. They’re just trying to create a state of fear. I’m not scared, and I just did a Google search for “suck my ass George W Bush”, so they can put that in their pipe and smoke it. Glad to see Google told them where they can stick their subpoena.

Furthermore, they aren’t catching any terrorists with this bullshit. In fact the FBI has complained about how the Bush regime is sending them on wild goose chases. Besides, any real terrorist isn’t going to sit around searching for “how to fly a 747” and then make a cell phone call to Osama for Christ’s sake.

71

Is it unreasonable to try and wire tap people who may be planning to blow things up?

hmm, let me think.[/quote]

You’d better think! The strawman alert on this is at Ray Bolgerian proportions and desperately craving brains.

Must … have … brains!

One might as well say the U.S. government has an interest in wiretapping anybody who might commit murder. Sure someone might, but the idea of judicial oversight is to make sure that there’s a reasoned basis for searches/seizures and to limit the scope so that it doesn’t become a fishing expedition into another citizen’s private life. It puts the issue in front of somebody (a judge) who might not have political axes to grind (i.e., Nixon-era wiretapping) or visceral dislikes for certain people/types of people (i.e., J. Edgar Hoover’s little wiretapping projects to look into the lives of MLK and many others). You might not like it, but it’s our Constitution.

So far the wiretapping effort has basically been a bunch of dead ends, which is one way of saying that the wiretapping has infringed the rights of many people without actually protecting us from anything. So you want to know what we’ve got against illegal wiretapping as a means to combat terror? A lot, really.

If you don’t like that the judges are supposed to review these things, then go ahead and try to get a new constitutional amendment passed – that’s how the system works. But in the meantime, it would be good for the president to realize that he’s a fellow citizen, subject to the same laws as apply to the rest of us.

72

The way I see it MFGR is that, if with the wire taps, they get nothing, and the law has been broken, then someone may go to jail.

If the wiretaps end, and terrorists do strike the US again…and let me stress that, AGAIN, then a few, dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of innocent people may die.

Doesn’t seem like a strawman to me. :idunno:

73

[quote=“jdsmith”]
If the wiretaps end, and terrorists do strike the US again…and let me stress that, AGAIN, then a few, dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of innocent people may die.[/quote]

It seems to me that you are making the assumption that wiretaps are necessary to prevent a terrorist strike and that doesnt seem to hold true. If the wiretaps end and a terrorist strike occurs, does that mean that it occured because the wiretaps end?

Most of the information coming from the wiretaps is of no use and just tieing up valuable resources that could be better utilized elsewhere. If the wiretaps are using up valuable resources instead of these resources being available to pursue more relevant subjects then would that not mean that the wiretaps are actually making the U.S. less safe?

[quote]President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a “vital tool” against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved “thousands of lives.”

But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.[/quote]
Here’s the article

74

[quote]It seems to me that you are making the assumption that wiretaps are necessary to prevent a terrorist strike and that doesnt seem to hold true. If the wiretaps end and a terrorist strike occurs, does that mean that it occured because the wiretaps end?
[/quote]

The wiretapping is one of the tools. It works. Just because no major breakthroughs have occurred because of them AFAIK, doesn’t mean it’s not a good tool.

This is needle in a haystack the size of Texas, not shooting fish in a barrel.

75

[quote=“jdsmith”]
The wiretapping is one of the tools. It works. Just because no major breakthroughs have occurred because of them AFAIK, doesn’t mean it’s not a good tool.

This is needle in a haystack the size of Texas, not shooting fish in a barrel.[/quote]

Well, according to the article that I posted, a number of officials who are actually involved with finding terrorists don’t think it works and in fact think it ties up valuable resources that could be used elsewhere.

76

[quote=“Gilgamesh”][quote=“jdsmith”]
The wiretapping is one of the tools. It works. Just because no major breakthroughs have occurred because of them AFAIK, doesn’t mean it’s not a good tool.

This is needle in a haystack the size of Texas, not shooting fish in a barrel.[/quote]

Well, according to the article that I posted, a number of officials who are actually involved with finding terrorists don’t think it works and in fact think it ties up valuable resources that could be used elsewhere.[/quote]

From the article:

[quote]
Intelligence officials disagree with any characterization of the program’s results as modest, said Judith A. Emmel, a spokeswoman for the office of the director of national intelligence. Ms. Emmel cited a statement at a briefing last month by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the country’s second-ranking intelligence official and the director of the N.S.A. when the program was started.

“I can say unequivocally that we have gotten information through this program that would not otherwise have been available,” General Hayden said. The White House and the F.B.I. declined to comment on the program or its results.[/quote]

[quote]
The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. “There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States,” the former F.B.I. official said.[/quote]

But how about overseas. People live there too.

[quote]
By the administration’s account, the N.S.A. eavesdropping helped lead investigators to Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver and friend of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Faris spoke of toppling the Brooklyn Bridge by taking a torch to its suspension cables, but concluded that it would not work. He is now serving a 20-year sentence in a federal prison.

But as in the London fertilizer bomb case, some officials with direct knowledge of the Faris case dispute that the N.S.A. information played a significant role.

By contrast, different officials agree that the N.S.A.'s domestic operations played a role in the arrest of an imam and another man in Albany in August 2004 as part of an F.B.I. counterterrorism sting investigation. The men, Yassin Aref, 35, and Mohammed Hossain, 49, are awaiting trial on charges that they attempted to engineer the sale of missile launchers to an F.B.I. undercover informant.

In addition, government officials said the N.S.A. eavesdropping program might have assisted in the investigations of people with suspected Qaeda ties in Portland and Minneapolis. In the Minneapolis case, charges of supporting terrorism were filed in 2004 against Mohammed Abdullah Warsame, a Canadian citizen. Six people in the Portland case were convicted of crimes that included money laundering and conspiracy to wage war against the United States.[/quote]

That’s Albany NY, the quiet little nothing capital of New York State.

Little information has come out, not none.

77

Then why not simply get a legal wiretap? There is a process that can be followed. Federal judges, as compared to the larger population pool, tend to be well-educated, well-meaning and able to understand the sensitivity of these cases. There are procedures to ensure secrecy. However, the Bush administration doesn’t want to bother following those rules.

It’s already a false argument when you pretend here that the choice is between wiretaps and no wiretaps. Come on, jd, we both know this is way below your skill and intelligence to float this t.p. on top of the adminstration’s crap. It’s intellectually dishonest at best. The choice is between legal wiretaps (i.e., those for which a reasonable basis has been provided to a court that has reviewed it) and illegal ones (i.e., those that the administration is trying to foist that have no oversight whatsoever). You want to shortcut the constitution, then try amending it. Do it the legal way.

Sure looks like one. You’re offering up false options to try to browbeat us into thinking the administration’s position actually has anything to do with the safety of Americans. Next time we hear somebody tell us about smoking guns in the form of a mushroom cloud as part of a GOP fear campaign, you can just keep it to yourself. We’ve heard it all before.

78

I actually with you on this. Yet, this is an iffy situation, given that the President ordered it done. If it were so cut and dried, then the program would have been immediately stopped, right?

I don’t like the wiretaps any more than you do, and my feeling is that there had better be a good goddamned reason for having them.

Albany NY is my hometown. The Iman there was caught trying to SELL missiles. They were caught partially from wiretaps.

That’s good enough for me.

And you know that getting legal warrants for the thousands of leads would be mindbogglingly difficult and time consuming.

peace

79

I actually with you on this. Yet, this is an iffy situation, given that the President ordered it done. If it were so cut and dried, then the program would have been immediately stopped, right?[/quote]

Not at all certain with this administration. We’ve seen things on the watch of this president that I hardly thought would happen – torture, indefinite detentions of suspects without access to counsel, kidnapping and shipping off of suspects to countries that do torture, and so on. What on earth would make you believe that this president would: 1) ever admit he’s wrong about anything or 2) stop doing something just because people tell him it’s illegal?

I don’t know if you quite understand the visceral dislike I have of the illegal wiretaps.

[quote=“jdsmith”]Albany NY is my hometown. The Iman there was caught trying to SELL missiles. They were caught partially from wiretaps.

That’s good enough for me.[/quote]

I’m sure you like Albany, but this isn’t about saving Albany from smoking guns in the form of mushroom clouds. Again you’re offering up silly fear-mongering strawmen, and it is a real disappointment to me that you’re still trying to do this.

The option is not between wiretaps and no wiretaps – the option is between legal wiretaps gained through an appropriate review by a judge and illegal ones. Do you really think there were no grounds by which federal agents could have legitimately gone to a judge? If you don’t have enough evidence to persuade one other intelligent person of the basis for a wiretap, then you perhaps ought not to be doing it.

[quote=“jdsmith”]And you know that getting legal warrants for the thousands of leads would be mindbogglingly difficult and time consuming.

peace[/quote]

Not so. Warrants are issued all the time. Thousands of them every day. Would all leads warrant full-blown wiretaps? Most leads wouldn’t. Not too long ago, some jackass reported his former business partners as terrorists, resulting in 100+ intelligence and police officers scrambling for days to try to find a couple of innocent guys. Stuff like that happens.

80

[quote]I’m sure you like Albany, but this isn’t about saving Albany from smoking guns in the form of mushroom clouds. Again you’re offering up silly fear-mongering strawmen, and it is a real disappointment to me that you’re still trying to do this.
[/quote]

No, it isn’t that I like Albany. Nor is it about offerring you or anyone else strawmen. The fact is that this stuff IS happening on US soil, and the wiretaps ARE helping in some small bit to prevent future attacks.

I don’t call it fearmongering when the guys in Albany were caught doing something the wiretaps were designed to track down.

Clearly, in this small way, they work.

This isn’t Dr. Mengala torturing patients and stumbling on a cure for cancer. The program is doing what is was designed to do. If the program was resulting in the arrests and or deaths or destruction of innocent people and their lives, then I surely would not be supportive of it.