Bush Lets US Spy On Callers Without Courts

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

Interesting observation by Dick Morris on a success from this project:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/59115.htm

EXCERPT:

Equally irresponsible is the criticism Democrats are leveling at President Bush for his use of National Security Agency wiretaps to catch terrorists. Before Clinton and Schumer criticize this policy, they’d do well to reflect on the fact that the Brooklyn Bridge might well be rubble, with thousands dead, if Bush did not use these wiretaps.

In 2002, the feds (presumably the NSA) picked up random cellphone chatter using the words “Brooklyn Bridge” (which apparently didn’t translate well into Arabic). They notified the New York Police Department, which flooded the bridge with cops. Then the feds overheard a phone call in which a man said things were “too hot” on the bridge to pull off an operation. Later, an interrogation of a terrorist allowed by the Patriot Act led cops to the doorstep of this would-be bridge bomber. (His plans would definitely have brought down the bridge, NYPD sources told me.)

Why didn’t Bush get a warrant? On who? For what? The NSA wasn’t looking for a man who might blow up the bridge. It had no idea what it was looking for. It just intercepted random phone calls from people in the United States to those outside ? and so heard the allusions to the bridge that tipped them off.

In criminal investigations, one can target a suspect and get a warrant to investigate him. But this deductive approach is a limited instrument in fighting terror. An inductive approach, in which one gathers a mass of evidence and looks for patterns, is far more useful.

222

Further, 7th Circuit judge Richard Posner, a noted civil libertarian by most accounts, weighs in on the surveillance:

"These programs are criticized as grave threats to civil liberties. They are not. Their significance is in flagging the existence of gaps in our defenses against terrorism. The Defense Department is rushing to fill those gaps, though there may be better ways.

The collection, mainly through electronic means, of vast amounts of personal data is said to invade privacy. But machine collection and processing of data cannot, as such, invade privacy. Because of their volume, the data are first sifted by computers, which search for names, addresses, phone numbers, etc., that may have intelligence value. This initial sifting, far from invading privacy (a computer is not a sentient being), keeps most private data from being read by any intelligence officer."

223

I saw that article too Thunderbolt – Posner is a very sharp judge, economically conservative but not really conservative in any other way. Definitely a civil libertarian.

Anyway, it’s interesting to note that in the legal analysis of 4th Amendment cases, any “privacy” right that people have to be free of government searches of their persons or property depends on a rational expectation of privacy. In these days when any amateur with a scanner can listen in on cell phone calls and emails are forwarded and accounts easily hacked, how much of a rational expectation of privacy can people expect to have w/r/t these types of communications?

224

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
…
ummm. he already admitted spying, thank you very much.

He admitted spying on our enemies within the guidelines of the law.

You have accused him of breaking the law. Do you see the difference?[/quote]

Zap,

To all these guys, GEORGE BUSH is illegal. They’ve been indoctrinated with the John Dewey/Marxist agenda for the destruction of American education: all definitions are just flexible devices you can twist however you want.

Did GW obey the rules? Yes. So, the Left now twists the rules to suit its definition (which is fluid to them and can be altered by their whim – or maybe by their monthly visit from ‘Mr. Grumpy’).

225

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hey, BB is a true gentleman on this site! That was uncalled for.

You should go back to the Free Republic too.

Both you and BB’s integrity are very questionable as you defend to protect ‘your team’ at the expense of protecting America.

Keep up the great work!

I was in a Free Republic until libs like you create an overgrown bureaucracy, tons of regulations, an income tax (gotta get those rich bastards!), and so much pure bullshit, the Founding Fathers have created a special place in heaven for you – its a giant fishpond where you are the fish and every day they go there to piss.
[/quote]

226

Boston,

Good stuff. Something else I find interesting - and you may have touched on this - is that the 4th Amendment requires protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. National security certainly must be weighed in the context of what is reasonable and what is not.

Also, don’t know if you read this, in a letter to Powerline from Bill Otis:

"Even in ordinary criminal cases, where the Supreme Court has held that a warrant is presumptively required by the Fourth Amendment, it has also long recognized an exception for what are known as “exigent circumstances.” In other words, when the government is facing what it reasonably views as a now-or-never chance to catch the bad guys, it is not required to obtain a warrant.

This being the case for your run-of-the-mill drug deal, it must surely be the case where the cost of failure is so much higher – indeed higher than any crime the country has ever seen. To view it differently is to prefer brain-dead legalism to survival."

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012616.php

Even Cass Sunstein is moved:

227

Wow, I can’t believe how much of a “we don’t need privacy” and “we don’t need protection from government” slant I am hearing.

This is absolutely amazing to me.

Hey, if rights and freedoms are so damned important that you’ll go to war in other countries in support of them, how come you are basically arguing that you don’t need them yourselves?

Forget for a moment that Bush is involved in this… isn’t the US founded on various ideals with respect to the people and their ability to avoid getting stuck under the thumb of their government?

228

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Anyway, it’s interesting to note that in the legal analysis of 4th Amendment cases, any “privacy” right that people have to be free of government searches of their persons or property depends on a rational expectation of privacy. In these days when any amateur with a scanner can listen in on cell phone calls and emails are forwarded and accounts easily hacked, how much of a rational expectation of privacy can people expect to have w/r/t these types of communications?

vroom wrote:

Wow, I can’t believe how much of a “we don’t need privacy” and “we don’t need protection from government” slant I am hearing.

This is absolutely amazing to me.

Hey, if rights and freedoms are so damned important that you’ll go to war in other countries in support of them, how come you are basically arguing that you don’t need them yourselves?

Forget for a moment that Bush is involved in this… isn’t the US founded on various ideals with respect to the people and their ability to avoid getting stuck under the thumb of their government?[/quote]

No, what you’re reading is an application of the legal standards to the current technological environment. If privacy is the stated goal, change the legal standards. If you decide that the value of the privacy standard is less than the cost of an intrusion (especially in a case in which there is not a rational expectation of privacy anyway), then keep the existing standards.

BTW, let me elucidate something for you, which I specified a while ago. Your right to “privacy” doesn’t exist in the Constitution. There are certain specific prohibitions against the government’s ability to search and seize, but even those aren’t that strong and are full of exceptions.

Here are a few of the things the government can do to citizens without a warrant:

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen’s home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen’s car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car ? regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search ? including a strip search ? at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;

Conduct warrantless searches of junkyards maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of docks maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;

Conduct warrantless searches of auto-repair shops operated by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of the books of American gem dealers in order to discourage traffic in stolen goods;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school students;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens who are on bail, probation or parole.

229

[quote]vroom wrote:

Wow, I can’t believe how much of a “we don’t need privacy” and “we don’t need protection from government” slant I am hearing.[/quote]

While you have quite a tendency to overreact, this takes the taco - not one person here suggested that we don’t need privacy or we don’t need protection from the government. What is being discussed is how to balance security and liberty in a time of war.

And the 4th Amendment is not a suicide pact - hence the use of the word ‘reasonable’. It doesn’t make sense to preserve this right of privacy inviolable so that “all the laws but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces, lest that one be violated.”

Sure they are, but this notion that you have - that you can do anything you want, whenever you want, at any time, or else it is a violation of your rights - is not the way it is nor is it the way it has been. The US is not predicated on this civil libertarian fiction that you keep appealing to - you may want it to be, and that is fine, but don’t have the audacity to pretend as though an executive exercising wartime powers parallel to his predecessors as some departure from American values when it plainly is not.

230

BTW, let me elucidate something for you. Your rights (and mine) are not limited to those that are enumerated explicitly in the constitution.

231

This ISSUE, which I think you don’t seem to realize with all the feel good spouting you get fed, is that you are going to be at war with terrorism for GENERATIONS. The lack of a defined end point for this means you have to be very careful.

Whatever little fiddling of your rights you do will still be in effect when your grandchildren are around. You need to think very long and hard about what seems expedient today and how it could be misused by someone OTHER THAN BUSH in the future.

There may be a period of time when your children or grandchildren never experienced a situation where the government wasn’t spying on it’s own citizens, without warrants, for whatever purpose based on a loose interpretation of a future patriot act.

Can you guarantee that we don’t have people in the future declaring people unpatriotic for wanting to leave the war footing, for wanting to limit presidential powers, during that continued ongoing long period of war? Hell, we have that now, it will only get more heated.

These issues aren’t about today. They are about tomorrow. Four or five administrations from now, when another terrorist strike hits. None of your sacrifices of freedom are going to guarantee safety… even if you keep sacrificing more and more of them.

Anyhow, sacrifice away, it’s your freedom and that of your children, not mine.

232

There are significant differences between these items and spying on someone indefinitely without oversight. If you can’t see the difference, that is your problem, not mine.

233

Are you as ignorant as you sound?

In particular, income taxes were a temporary measure used to support funding the war. Regardless of who was in power at the time, I don’t think you can blame them for needing the cash.

More importantly, I haven’t seen steps taken by either party to end income taxes – so I don’t think you can place partisan blame for something like that.

Also, neither do I see either party doing anything significant with respect to paring down beauracracy, regulation or spending.

Maybe instead of buying into the moronic opinion that all of the ills of the world are “liberal” or “republican” maybe you should figure out how to use your own mind?

234

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BTW, let me elucidate something for you, which I specified a while ago. Your right to “privacy” doesn’t exist in the Constitution. There are certain specific prohibitions against the government’s ability to search and seize, but even those aren’t that strong and are full of exceptions.

vroom wrote:

BTW, let me elucidate something for you. Your rights (and mine) are not limited to those that are enumerated explicitly in the constitution.[/quote]

vroom,

From whence does the right of privacy arise?

235

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Here are a few of the things the government can do to citizens without a warrant:

vroom wrote:

There are significant differences between these items and spying on someone indefinitely without oversight. If you can’t see the difference, that is your problem, not mine.[/quote]

vroom,

The NSA program doesn’t appear to involve “spying on someone [I assume you mean a U.S. citizen here] indefinitey without oversight.” So what’s your point?

236

Is there a deadline imposed on the spying?

Is there a requirement for oversight?

Without a deadline in permission or real oversight, then it is indefinitely and without oversight, by definition.

What kind of partisan shenanigans are you playing here?

237

When I am alone in my house, there are laws that prevent people from peeking in the windows…

When I whisper sweet nothings to my girlfriend over the telephone, there are various laws in various locations preventing people from recording that…

At a more basic level, I’m a living breathing human being. My rights are either as I cede them to society or if necessary, I have the right to attempt to reject existing society, just as was done by the founding fathers.

However, there are stages in between, where I can fight to protect my rights, and those of my children, without resorting to revolution.

I’ve never claimed that the right to privacy was ensconced in the constitution, don’t be such an ass. We aren’t all partisan hack constitutional lawyers, thankfully.

238

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
…
ummm. he already admitted spying, thank you very much.

He admitted spying on our enemies within the guidelines of the law.

You have accused him of breaking the law. Do you see the difference?

No - he doesn’t. And neither does the radical left wing idiots in congress.

If Gin-Nosed Ted is on one side - conventional wisdom dictates that the correct place to be is as far away from him as possible. Same goes for Dirty Harry Reid, Tom Daschle and “Never Had A Fucking Job” Rockefeller.

Granted Daschle is nothing more than a bad memory now - but he was around when it was happening. [/quote]

Wasn’t Rockefeller in on this program?

This is pure political bullshit.

239

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The NSA program doesn’t appear to involve “spying on someone [I assume you mean a U.S. citizen here] indefinitey without oversight.” So what’s your point?

vroom wrote:

Is there a deadline imposed on the spying?[/quote]

I wasn’t maintaining there was a deadline. I was maintaining it wasn’t “spying”, as we know it. Refer to the Posner article above that thunder posted.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Is there a requirement for oversight?[/quote]

No, as this falls under the President’s commander-in-chief power, not law enforcement. It’s not something that should be micromanaged by either courts or Congress, though Congress could defund it I suppose.

But the point was w/r/t to the “spying.” You make it sound as if there are agents listening in on all the conversations and making transcribed records that will be kept on file for some sort of sinister purpose.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Without a deadline in permission or real oversight, then it is indefinitely and without oversight, by definition.[/quote]

See above.

[quote]vroom wrote:

What kind of partisan shenanigans are you playing here?[/quote]

No games. I’m saying that this technology doesn’t seem to fit the definition.

And, in addition, I’m going to say that the government isn’t generally restricted from looking at something for which there is not a rational expectation of privacy. They could post someone to sit outside your house and look at it forever, or take satellite pictures of your property forever, without any oversight. From the descriptions I’ve read, this seems a far less intrusive progam than either of those established governmental powers.

240

[quote]vroom wrote:

When I am alone in my house, there are laws that prevent people from peeking in the windows…[/quote]

Not the government, if you don’t pull down the shades.

[quote]vroom wrote:

When I whisper sweet nothings to my girlfriend over the telephone, there are various laws in various locations preventing people from recording that…[/quote]

Though if you’re outside they could have a listening device in the phone booth, or in your car, or they could hire a lip-reader, etc. Actually, they could lip-read through your windows if you’re home too.

[quote]
vroom wrote:

At a more basic level, I’m a living breathing human being. My rights are either as I cede them to society or if necessary, I have the right to attempt to reject existing society, just as was done by the founding fathers.

However, there are stages in between, where I can fight to protect my rights, and those of my children, without resorting to revolution.

I’ve never claimed that the right to privacy was ensconced in the constitution, don’t be such an ass. We aren’t all partisan hack constitutional lawyers, thankfully.[/quote]

Well vroom,

Just let me know when you (and a majority of the people) want to go back to the days when the federal government was actually limited to its enumerated powers. I’d be all for it actually.

But just remember that all those anti-discrimination laws are based on the same general governmental authority.

You can argue for more rights all you want – but just understand you’re arguing for more rights, not rights as they already exist.