Bush Lets US Spy On Callers Without Courts

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]vroom 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?

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?[/quote]

I believe the program has to be renewed every 45 days.

The program has legislative oversight.

The fact that this information is not prominent in every story about the subject indicates our media is incompetent, partisan or merely self serving. No matter the reason it is sad.

242

Again, you are missing a huge point here, probably on purpose.

Taking pictures of the US, including every single piece of property on it, is very different than specifically taking pictures of my house and my property for the purpose of investigating me.

Odds are low that they could post someone on my house on surveillance detail to take pictures and expect to be able to use them for anything. There would also be the possible issue of harrassment.

I simply cannot believe how draconian and far reaching you feel the government should be allowed to be.

I realize it is a time or war, but as I have said previously, this is a “war” that will be going on for possibly the next 100 years. Do you think you can reasonably expect such powers to not be abused by anybody over that timeframe?

This is not about Bush.

243

Anybody see “enemy of the state”?

244

BB, are you talking about a different program?

In the Presidents speech the other day he said that he had to renew the program every 45 days and he would continue to do so.

He also mentioned the congressional oversight aspect.

245

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
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.

vroom wrote:

Again, you are missing a huge point here, probably on purpose.

Taking pictures of the US, including every single piece of property on it, is very different than specifically taking pictures of my house and my property for the purpose of investigating me.[/quote]

No, you’re missing the point. They can take pictures of just your house and just your property for whatever reason they want. [ADDENDUM: I should note for the purpose of clarity that they can’t take X-rays or infra-red readings that would enable them to look through your walls - but they can look through your windows if you don’t pull the shades. Again, it’s about rational expectation of privacy]

[quote]vroom wrote:

Odds are low that they could post someone on my house on surveillance detail to take pictures and expect to be able to use them for anything. There would also be the possible issue of harrassment.[/quote]

Nope, they could use them for criminal prosecution, though they couldn’t sell them without your permission – they could keep them on file though.

No harrassment if they aren’t doing anything illegal and they aren’t trespassing or otherwise interfering with your ability to move or talk or whatever (and note, it doesn’t matter if they’re interfering with your feelings about exercising those abilities).

[quote]vroom wrote:

I simply cannot believe how draconian and far reaching you feel the government should be allowed to be.

I realize it is a time or war, but as I have said previously, this is a “war” that will be going on for possibly the next 100 years. Do you think you can reasonably expect such powers to not be abused by anybody over that timeframe?

This is not about Bush.[/quote]

I’m simply trying to explain to you what the powers of the government currently are, not trying to argue they should be expanded. You don’t seem to realize how far reaching the governments’ powers already are.

The start of this whole tirade from you was simply Thunder and my observations that the court-created “reasonable expectation of privacy” that applies in 4th Amendment reviews to telephone calls might not reflect the current reality of cell phones and electronic communications.

246

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
BB, are you talking about a different program?

In the Presidents speech the other day he said that he had to renew the program every 45 days and he would continue to do so.

He also mentioned the congressional oversight aspect.[/quote]

No, you’re right. That’s this program.

I was thinking of the argument that the power to enact this program is inherent in the President’s executive powers - under that argument, no oversight is required (though he’s doing it anyway, on the advice of counsel - we counsel like both belts and suspenders…).

247

[quote]vroom wrote:
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.

Are you as ignorant as you sound?

In particular, income taxes were a temporary measure used to support funding the war.

Our income tax was introduced in 1913. Who were we at war with? And you call me ignorant? The Founding Fathers are unzipping their flies, Vroom!

The Republicans have tried to cut some of the liberal agenda in the past and the Dems have demagogued it all over the place. Remember how wanting to slow the growth of SS and Medicare became “Those evil Republicans want you old people to live on cat food and have no health care!” I really don’t know how these Dems can live with themselves – they know that their agenda is spending the country into bankruptcy, yet continue to do it.

Wait, when the USA fails, Canada can police the globe, keep order, keep those Al Qaeda from running wild! Nothing to worry about.

248

BTW, you should call the British and tell them they are violating the undefined yet fundamental right of privacy attached to people’s license plates:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece

249

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Our income tax was introduced in 1913. Who were we at war with? And you call me ignorant? The Founding Fathers are unzipping their flies, Vroom!
[/quote]

Okay, not precisely accurate…

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation’s first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source.

It was knocked down several times, and came back around WWI.

The present federal income tax dates from the act signed by President Wilson on October 3, 1913. That act was made possible by the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution adopted on February 3, 1913. Earlier federal income tax laws had been repealed or held unconstitutional. The income tax first became a significant source of revenue during World War I.

I guess you’d better start sucking…

250

Strangely, I suspect that if the government had these powers, they would be using them more significantly.

Somehow, something holds them back from doing these things on a consistent basis.

Casual observation is very different than specific investigation. This is also true with electronic issues.

251

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m simply trying to explain to you what the powers of the government currently are, not trying to argue they should be expanded. You don’t seem to realize how far reaching the governments’ powers already are.

vroom wrote:

Strangely, I suspect that if the government had these powers, they would be using them more significantly.

Somehow, something holds them back from doing these things on a consistent basis.

Casual observation is very different than specific investigation. This is also true with electronic issues.[/quote]

They do these things on a consistent basis. Just look at the caselaw establishing those particular exceptions, or the ones from my post listing exceptions above.

The reason you don’t hear more about them is that they’re used on criminals. I don’t think they care to use those resources to chart your pizza orders.

BTW, your point on “casual observation” versus “specific investigation” is pretty much Posner’s point in why this program is less instrusive for privacy than would be normal wiretaps.

252

BTW, the Washington Post notes that the FISA court has been aware of the NSA program since its inception:

Of course, it doesn’t mention that until the 19th paragraph of the story. And I’ve not heard it mentioned elsewhere at all. Wonder why that is? Perhaps it doesn’t fit the “imperial President” meme of Bush running roughshod over the other branches (we already know, of course, that the leading members of both parties in the Congressional intelligence committees were fully briefed, and updated regularly, on the program).

253

This is so typical. Being aware of something does not mean that anyone was exercise legitimate oversight.

Again, this is NOT a Bush issue. It is about making sure you keep appropriate checks and balances in place.

254

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Our income tax was introduced in 1913. Who were we at war with? And you call me ignorant? The Founding Fathers are unzipping their flies, Vroom!

Okay, not precisely accurate…

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation’s first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source.

It was knocked down several times, and came back around WWI.

The present federal income tax dates from the act signed by President Wilson on October 3, 1913. That act was made possible by the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution adopted on February 3, 1913. Earlier federal income tax laws had been repealed or held unconstitutional. The income tax first became a significant source of revenue during World War I.

I guess you’d better start sucking…[/quote]

Are you really former President Clinton? You sure can ‘slick’ your way around the truth.

“Earlier federal income tax laws had been repealed or held unconstitutional.” Being introduced and actually having are two different concepts. Man, no wonder RJ rips you a new one regularly.

The Founding Fathers are waiting by that fish pond for you.

255

Here’s a pdf of the DOJ letter to Congress laying forth the public legal arguments for the NSA program:

http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf

256

Here’s a transcript of Cass Sunstein discussing his analysis of the situation on the Hugh Hewitt radio program:

http://www.radioblogger.com/#001248

257

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

The reason you don’t hear more about them is that they’re used on criminals. I don’t think they care to use those resources to chart your pizza orders.

[/quote]

Who decides who the criminals are without listening?

I think that excuse can be used for just about everyone. A picture of crime can be painted on just about every innocent citizen in the USA.

258

ZEB,

You’re misapplying what I was referencing. I was talking about what police have the power to do without a warrant right now, generally, not specifically referencing the NSA program’s wiretaps.

BTW, we can’t know for certain (as it’s classified), but it seems this a very high-tech data-mining type of program (computers scanning cell phone calls for key words or phrases before anyone actually listens in or pays attention to the calls), and it’s applied based on connections to al Queda (from parsing statements by the AG and the DOJ).

259

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Would someone mind explaining to me how this is “ok” to anyone? Expanding the powers of the NSA drastically in secrecy to where it now directly affects Americans is now acceptable?[/quote]

… I think you need to research this more. For example the contitution gives these powers to the prez.Article 2. Congress can not lead the arm forces but the prez can. In other words certain power to the prez only is lawfull- look at the previeous administrations, Clinton has used it & liberals did not say a thing.

We do not have to worry in this time of war. The tapps are being done to mostly known affiliates of the terror movement. Marry Christmas…
bozz

260

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

The reason you don’t hear more about them is that they’re used on criminals. I don’t think they care to use those resources to chart your pizza orders.

ZEB wrote:

Who decides who the criminals are without listening?

I think that excuse can be used for just about everyone. A picture of crime can be painted on just about every innocent citizen in the USA.

ZEB,

You’re misapplying what I was referencing. I was talking about what police have the power to do without a warrant right now, generally, not specifically referencing the NSA program’s wiretaps.

BTW, we can’t know for certain (as it’s classified), but it seems this a very high-tech data-mining type of program (computers scanning cell phone calls for key words or phrases before anyone actually listens in or pays attention to the calls), and it’s applied based on connections to al Queda (from parsing statements by the AG and the DOJ).
[/quote]

I did misinterpret your prior post. My apologies.