[quote]rainjack wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
Links to Bush Approval:
This one says that bush’s approval has been about 40% for a while, although there is the 50% approval reported as well earlier this week Lets give it a few weeks to see if proves to be accurate
It mentions several different organizations that did the polling.
Bush could be at 95% - or 5% - for all I care about polls. They are proving themselves to be useless. Anyone that uses them for anything other than entertainment purposes (and by that, I mean pissing off liberals) deserves whatever they have coming to them. [/quote]
Wait so they mattered when you said that he was doing well but now they dont matter anymore? Granted they aren’t scientific by a long shot but if they were that bad then they wouldn’t be used. Period.
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
Wait so they mattered when you said that he was doing well but now they dont matter anymore? Granted they aren’t scientific by a long shot but if they were that bad then they wouldn’t be used. Period. [/quote]
I think you only read what you wanted to read in my post referring to poll numbers.
Here is what I said:
But not nearly as badly as the left had hoped. Bush’s numbers are coming back (if you buy into that pseudo-science crap).
If you will notice - I qualified my usage of the polling results by saying that I consider polls pseudo-science.
Believe them if you want to. I think they are questionable at best. Just because they are used does not mean they are reliable. Just ask the exit pollsters in the last 2 presidential elections. The egg on their faces is not an accident.
I have said for a long time that the only truly accurate poll is the one at the ballot box.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
No, no, no, junior. That is not how we play the game. You asked if I knew what was going on. I answered.
I asked you to prove that tapping international calls was illegal. You don’t get to ask another question until you have first answered that which was asked of you. I am sorry but your word means dick to me. You need to prove with something other than your childish logic.
I have never said whether I sagreed with the monitoring of selected international phone calls, or not. I just know that it is not illegal as you proclaim.
Anyhow - the issue that I initially posted about was the hypocrisy of the ABB crowd in not calling for an investigation to find the one that did indeed break the law by revealing top secret information. That is the law that was broken, sparky.
I guess your parents always told you that you were really smart. I hate to break it to you, but they were just being nice. Just like my parents were when they told me I was a cute kid. The truth hurts but the sooner you face the fact that you are missing a couple of light bulbs upstairs, the sooner you will be able to live a happier, all be it a much, much simpler life.
And your anger at those that have made a decision to stand on the right side of history is really getting a little old. Just in case you haven’t got it yet - you aren’t changing anyone’s mind with your hatred. But look who I am talking to. How many hockey helmets do you go through in a year anyway, sparky?
[/quote]
where? Where did you answer? I see nothing but childish insults. Juniors a nice touch by the way.
No warrant was obtained. Can you PROVE it was only international calls that were tapped? Or are you just gonna go on blind faith in your government? thats what i thought.
If you agree or disagree,Why so strong in defending it then?
So revealing that our government spied on us is illegal? Very sad if true. correct, it is hypocritical, except for the fact that this is information that should not have been withheld. Amazing how your turning this into the leakers fault and find no fault with what Bush did. Also, you seem to be trying to turn the whole issue into another partisan issue, instead of looking at it on its face. Again, no surprise there though, pretty much par for the course for you.
Aww, Rainjack you big sumbitch, you got me.Your almost loveable the way you insult me your just a big ole hillbilly and it means so much coming from you.I mean, after all, its tough living the life I do in total and complete submission to my leader and master, George Bush. Also, I guess being dumb gave me more time to make a shitload of cash playing a professional sport. Kind of a double edge sword,I know, but such a simple, yet somehow, sweet life…
Oh, so you have a crystal ball now? Your sure your on the right side of history? Hatred? why, how dare you? You started with the insults towards me, AGAIN. Hockey helmets? Cmon now big guy you can do better. After all, your the smart one right? I play Baseball, get it, baseball? Im sure if I go slowly, you can understand… So its baseball helmets. I dont like hockey. Junior gotta go play real life. Talky later big ole sumbitch…
[quote]mmg_4 wrote:
Oh, so you have a crystal ball now? Your sure your on the right side of history? Hatred? why, how dare you? You started with the insults towards me, AGAIN. Hockey helmets? Cmon now big guy you can do better. After all, your the smart one right? I play Baseball, get it, baseball? Im sure if I go slowly, you can understand… So its baseball helmets. I dont like hockey. Junior gotta go play real life. Talky later big ole sumbitch… [/quote]
I think you were the one that started it by calling me a fucking moron.
I really like it when rocket scientists like you have to prove their manhood by telling us regular guys how rich you are (or were when you actually meant something to someone other than yourself). I am wondering what in the hell your previous career has to do with PATRIOT I or II.
read the thread. You asked if I knew what the subnject was. I said yes. That my half-witted friend is what we call an answer. Now - you asked a simple question and you got a simple answer.
I asked you to prove that their was a crime committed since you said the President’s acts were illegal. And your best attempt at an answer was to tell me how big your dick was when you were a professional baseball player.
And you wonder why I doubt your ability to cross the street unassisted?
It means, go after the people that leaked the story.
It also means, that based on reports, leaking was fairly across the board, not a partisan thing.
So, as with the Plame issues, go after them for breaking the law. Why not, people will still provide leaks, out of moral conscience.
How can that make little sense, it directly answered your question (after I had first talked about the difference between the administration breaking the law and the general public doing so for reasons of conscience).
[quote]vroom wrote:
It means, go after the people that leaked the story.
It also means, that based on reports, leaking was fairly across the board, not a partisan thing.
So, as with the Plame issues, go after them for breaking the law. Why not, people will still provide leaks, out of moral conscience.
How can that make little sense, it directly answered your question (after I had first talked about the difference between the administration breaking the law and the general public doing so for reasons of conscience).[/quote]
Sorry vroom. Sometimes it’s hard to tell if you re honest or sarcastic.
I wouldn’t call it ‘moral conscience’. There is no such thing in DC. Political expedience maybe, but moral connscience? Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was fiction.
[quote]mmg_4 wrote:
I think this all comes down to trust. Who trusts Bush and his administration to do the RIGHT thing and not abuse their power? If your a republican on this board apparently you do, regardless of what illegal your administration may have been doing. I really have a hard time seeing how this is not a big deal to some people. Its called a slippery slope. start with spying on a few calls, turns into something else,etc.,etc… Lets see, Clinton was almost impeached for getting a blow job, and Bush spies on US callers illegally and its alright? Someone help me out with this please…Whats wrong with this picture and why the hell cant some people see there is something seriously wrong with this whole thing?[/quote]
Try to get your basic facts right. Clinton got impeached for lying under oath.
Bush authorized the NSA to listen in on overseas calls between Americans and supected al-Qaeda operatives. This program has congessional oversight. There are no rulings that say this is illegal althouth it may be in the gray area.
When you form political opinion based on bad information perhaps you should rethink your opinions.
Fear of Phoning
December 19, 2005: Fear of Western technological espionage capabilities appears to have caused al Qaeda serious communications problems. Apparently some personnel and operations have been compromised because of hi-tech monitoring of telephone (both wire and cell), radio, and internet communications, even when relatively complex encryption techniques have been used.
As a result, al Qaeda appears to have fallen on less sophisticated means of keeping in touch, such as couriers. This has slowed al Qaeda activities considerably, since couriers may take months to move from place to place, particularly if they are traveling from some wild remote area, such as from the Northwest Frontier region of Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding, or trying to enter or leave a war zone.
Although al Qaeda is a ?flat? organization, with its tentacles largely autonomous, the central leadership plays an important role in providing guidance, funding, and coordination. Osama bin Laden?s apparent inability to curb some of the anti-Moslem violence perpetrated by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, leader of Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, is perhaps partially attributable to the organization?s increasing communications difficulties.
Even the couriers are not safe, and there has been a considerable effort to track down and capture them. Some have apparently been caught, which results in a valuable trove of intel information.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
Oh, so you have a crystal ball now? Your sure your on the right side of history? Hatred? why, how dare you? You started with the insults towards me, AGAIN. Hockey helmets? Cmon now big guy you can do better. After all, your the smart one right? I play Baseball, get it, baseball? Im sure if I go slowly, you can understand… So its baseball helmets. I dont like hockey. Junior gotta go play real life. Talky later big ole sumbitch…
I think you were the one that started it by calling me a fucking moron.
I really like it when rocket scientists like you have to prove their manhood by telling us regular guys how rich you are (or were when you actually meant something to someone other than yourself). I am wondering what in the hell your previous career has to do with PATRIOT I or II.
read the thread. You asked if I knew what the subnject was. I said yes. That my half-witted friend is what we call an answer. Now - you asked a simple question and you got a simple answer.
I asked you to prove that their was a crime committed since you said the President’s acts were illegal. And your best attempt at an answer was to tell me how big your dick was when you were a professional baseball player.
And you wonder why I doubt your ability to cross the street unassisted?
[/quote]
No actually my post about being a baseball player were in response to you saying i had no life. And I said he obtained no warrants, for the 5th time…You called me a child, first. Keep trying, Rainjack, your not very good at this whole tit for tat thing partner. my previous career has nothing to do with the patriot act. It has everything to do with your 1st post towards me saying i was a child and had no life, because all you can do is throw insults, so you will be responded to in that way.
[quote]mmg_4 wrote:
No actually my post about being a baseball player were in response to you saying i had no life. And I said he obtained no warrants, for the 5th time…You called me a child, first. Keep trying, Rainjack, your not very good at this whole tit for tat thing partner. my previous career has nothing to do with the patriot act. It has everything to do with your 1st post towards me saying i was a child and had no life, because all you can do is throw insults, so you will be responded to in that way.[/quote]
Geez - how can I word this so that you can understand it? let’s try it a different way. You said what the President is doing is illegal. Forget about no warrant being issued. I don’t know when a President has ever been served a warrant.
For the monitoring of selected ovreseas calls to be illegal, a law has to have been broken. I asked you to prove that a law was broken. You have yet to even come close to addressing that. You seem to think that a warrant means something.
And FYI - being a professional athlete does not make you any less childish. So I’m still wondering what that little dick waving tantrum was about.
[i] A high-ranking intelligence official with firsthand knowledge said in an interview yesterday that Vice President Cheney, then-Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet and Michael V. Hayden, then a lieutenant general and director of the National Security Agency, briefed four key members of Congress about the NSA’s new domestic surveillance on Oct. 25, 2001, and Nov. 14, 2001, shortly after Bush signed a highly classified directive that eliminated some restrictions on eavesdropping against U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
In describing the briefings, administration officials made clear that Cheney was announcing a decision, not asking permission from Congress. How much the legislators learned is in dispute.
Former senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who chaired the Senate intelligence committee and is the only participant thus far to describe the meetings extensively and on the record, said in interviews Friday night and yesterday that he remembers "no discussion about expanding [NSA eavesdropping] to include conversations of U.S. citizens or conversations that originated or ended in the United States" -- and no mention of the president's intent to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
"I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy," Graham said, with new opportunities to intercept overseas calls that passed through U.S. switches. He believed eavesdropping would continue to be limited to "calls that initiated outside the United States, had a destination outside the United States but that transferred through a U.S.-based communications system."
Graham said the latest disclosures suggest that the president decided to go "beyond foreign communications to using this as a pretext for listening to U.S. citizens' communications. There was no discussion of anything like that in the meeting with Cheney."
The high-ranking intelligence official, who spoke with White House permission but said he was not authorized to be identified by name, said Graham is "misremembering the briefings," which in fact were "very, very comprehensive." The official declined to describe any of the substance of the meetings, but said they were intended "to make sure the Hill knows this program in its entirety, in order to never, ever be faced with the circumstance that someone says, 'I was briefed on this but I had no idea that -- ' and you can fill in the rest."
By Graham's account, the official said, "it appears that we held a briefing to say that nothing is different . . . . Why would we have a meeting in the vice president's office to talk about a change and then tell the members of Congress there is no change?"[/i]
[i]"I was advised of President Bush's decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities shortly after he made it and have been provided with updates on several occasions.
"The Bush Administration considered these briefings to be notification, not a request for approval. As is my practice whenever I am notified about such intelligence activities, I expressed my strong concerns during these briefings."[/i]
She is apparently unwilling to divulge a hint as to just what strong concerns she raised.
[i] REID: Listen, the program has been in effect. It’s been in effect for four years, according to the New York Times. I was briefed a couple of months ago. The program had been in existence a long time prior to that time.
WALLACE: But I want to ask you directly, Senator, because, you know, you're raising an issue about consultation. Were you ever briefed on it? Did you ever object? [/i]
“A couple of months ago”. Well, I got a haircut a couple of days ago, but that is not the complete history of my hair styling experience. I wonder if Sen. Reid had received earlier briefings, and whether he pulled a fast one on Chris Wallace.
After a 2003 briefing, Senator Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who became vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that year, wrote a letter to Mr. Cheney expressing concerns about the program, officials knowledgeable about the letter said. It could not be determined if he received a reply.
And elsewhere in the story, we see this:
[i]...reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.[/i]
Either he made some lucky guesses, or Mr. Rockefeller knew enough about this program to raise some cogent objections.
And Tom Daschle, who was Senate Majority leader when this program was initiated in late 2001, has not been heard from.
DefenseTech wants to think outside the box, and wonders if we are not talking about some new technology that is not quite covered by current law and procedures ( Unauthorized Access ).
And for a trip down memory lane - what was Echelon, and where is it now?
[i]Members of Congress, the European Parliament and civil liberties groups have begun to ask tough questions about the National Security Agency's interception of foreign telephone calls, faxes and electronic mail, the most intense scrutiny of NSA operations since the so-called Church committee probed the spy agency 24 years ago. Beginning with a report written for the 15-nation European Parliament last year, public concern has been building in many countries around Echelon, the code name for a worldwide surveillance network run by the NSA and its partners in Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.[/i]
The legality of the administration’s program appears to be an open question. I would really like to see the legal briefs from various executive branch counsel on the subject to see what the reasoning is, but of course they’re still classified.
As it is, it seems to be an unresolved question. As I said above, the protections against governmental eavesdropping are both narrow and weak, especially relating to international communications.
Anyway, here’s a U of Wisconsin con law professor opining on the subject - I’ll post more analyses as I find them:
About those wiretaps and the constitutional separation of powers.
Condolezza Rice defends Bush’s authorization of warrantless interception of telephone calls coming into the country from terrorists sources ( Rice Defends Domestic Eavesdropping - The New York Times ):
[i] In Sunday talk show appearances, Ms. Rice said the program was intended to eliminate the “seam” between American intelligence operations overseas and law enforcement agencies at home.
"One of the most compelling outcomes of the 9/11 commission was that a seam had developed," Ms. Rice said on "Meet the Press" on NBC. "Our intelligence agencies looked out; our law enforcement agencies looked in. And people could - terrorists could - exploit the seam between them."...
Ms. Rice also said Mr. Bush decided to skirt the normal process of obtaining court-approved search warrants for the surveillance because it was too cumbersome for fast-paced counterterrorism investigations....
Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency must obtain search warrants from a special court before conducting electronic surveillance of people suspected to be terrorists or spies. Ms. Rice said the administration believed that it needed greater agility in investigating terrorism suspects than was possible through that process.
"These are stateless networks of people who communicate, and communicate in much more fluid ways," she said.[/i]
Obviously, there is a tremendous amount of controversy about whether these justifications are sufficient. You can say the President ought to have had specific authorization from Congress for what he did, and you might imagine a court sorting through the problem, looking at the legislation that does exist and examining whether the President did things that go beyond that legislation and, if he did, whether he has freestanding executive powers to support his actions. However, what is needed now is for Congress to examine the problem and take a position in response. And, indeed, Congress will do that, with hearings beginning soon:
[i] Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he was not certain whether the eavesdropping program was legal. He said he expected to hold hearings on it early next year.
On CNN on Sunday, Mr. Specter struck a cautious tone. "Let's not jump to too many conclusions," he said. "Let's look at it analytically. Let's have oversight hearings, and let's find out exactly what went on."
"Whether it was legal, I think, is a matter that has to be examined," Mr. Specter said. "When you deal with issues as to legality, what advice the president got from the attorney general and others in the Department of Justice, that's a matter within the traditional purview of the Judiciary Committee."[/i]
Members of Congress were briefed about the program in the past and did not see fit to take a position about it one way or the other. They were content to let the President act and but feel pressured to do something now that the program is no longer secret. Let’s see what they do.
We have a developing conflict between Congress and the Presidency. Congress can decide if it stands in opposition to intercepting these phone calls without a warrant. There is no need for courts to become involved in any asserted separation of powers problem until Congress takes a position. The legal question whether separation of powers has been violated at this point is complicated and interesting, but there is no reason for any court to answer it, when Congress is able to go on record about whether it wants the President to be able to do these things or not.
So, I look forward to the hearings, which I hope will cover the question of who blew the secret and why.
The book “Puzzle Palace”, by James Bamford does a good job of explaining how the NSA operates and how they collect information. I have to dust off my copy, but it would give some good backround information on this issue and I believe that back in the late 80’s there were a couple of lawsuits brought by different american citizens that were attempting to prove that the NSA was spying on Americans, on American soil.
December 19, 2005, 8:59 a.m.
Unwarranted Outrage
The Times blew our cover.
I have no doubt that revelations in the New York Times ( Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts - The New York Times ) that the NSA has been conducting selective and limited surveillance of terrorist communications crossing into or out of the United States will be immensely valuable to our enemies. I also have no doubt that these and similar actions can be legal, even when conducted without warrants.
How could that be? From the sound and fury of the last few days from politicians and pundits, you would think this is a development as scandalous as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy’s authorization to wiretap Martin Luther King Jr. ( The FBI and Martin Luther King - The Atlantic ). But the legality of the acts can be demonstrated with a look through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) ( U.S. Code Title 50. War and National Defense | FindLaw ). For example, check out section 1802, “Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order.” ( U.S. Code | FindLaw )It is most instructive. There you will learn that “Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year” (emphasis mine).
Naturally, there are conditions. For example, the surveillance must be aimed at “the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers.” Wait, is a terrorist group considered a foreign power? Yes, as defined in section 1801, subsection (a), “foreign power” can mean “a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore,” though the statue language would explicitly apply to “a faction of a foreign nation or nations.” ( 50 U.S.C. § 1801 - U.S. Code Title 50. War and National Defense § 1801 | FindLaw )
But isn’t international terrorism that which takes place abroad, as opposed to homegrown domestic terrorism? Not exactly: Section 1801 subsection (c) defines international terrorism as, among other things, terrorist actions that “occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.” So if you are hiding, making plans, facilitating, attacking, or intending to spread fear inside the US, and have a link abroad, you are an international terrorist. Quite sensible.
O.K. fine, but what about the condition that there be “no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party?” Doesn’t that necessarily cut out any and all communication that is domestic in origin or destination? Well, not quite. Return to section 1801, subsection (i): “United States person,” which includes citizens, legal aliens, and businesses, explicitly “does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power.”
Well sure, but does that mean that even if you are a citizen you cash in your abovementioned rights by collaborating with terrorists? Yes you do. You have then become an “Agent of a foreign power” as defined under subsection (b)(2)(C). Such agents include anyone who “knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power,” and even includes those who aid and abet or knowingly conspire with those engaged in such behavior.
Wait, that includes anyone, even citizens? Yes ? subsection (b)(1) is the part that applies to foreigners; (b)(2) covers everybody. And the whole point of the act is to collect “foreign intelligence information,” which is defined under section 1801 subsection (e)(1)(B) as “information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.”
Whoa, you say, that is way too much power for the president to wield without checks and balances! Well, true, and since Congress wrote this law, they included reporting requirements. The attorney general must report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 30 days prior to the surveillance, except in cases of emergency, when he must report immediately. He must furthermore “fully inform” those committees on a semiannual basis thereafter, per section 1808 subsection (a) ( U.S. Code | FindLaw ). He must also send a copy of the surveillance authorization under seal to the so-called FISA Court as established in section 1803 ( 50 U.S.C. § 1803 - U.S. Code Title 50. War and National Defense § 1803 | FindLaw ); not for a warrant, but to remain under seal unless certification is necessary under future court actions from aggrieved parties under section 1806 (f) ( U.S. Code | FindLaw ).
This is significant, because it means that some of the same politicians who have been charging abuse of power may also have been briefed on what was going on long ago. The White House should get ahead of the story by noting which congressmen were informed of these activities, instead of allowing them to grandstand so shamelessly. It would also help if the White House released some information on how the surveillance has helped keep the country safe. What attacks were disrupted, what terrorists were taken down, how many people saved? A few declassified examples would be very useful to ground the discussion in reality rather than rhetoric.
So how do the revelations in the Times help the terrorists? Think it through ? if you were a terrorist and you believed (as most people seem to) that the NSA would ignore your communications if they crossed U.S. borders, your best move would be to set up communications relay stations inside the U.S. Terrorists are well known for their ability to find and exploit loopholes in our laws, and this would be a natural. For all we know our intelligence agencies have been exploiting these types of communications for years without the terrorists knowing it. Now they will fall silent, because now the bad guys know better. So New York Times writer James Risen will sell his book, the Times will increase circulation, politicians will beat their breasts and send out fundraising letters, and who will pay in the end?
You can answer that one.
James S. Robbins is senior fellow in national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council, a trustee for the Leaders for Liberty Foundation, and an NRO contributor.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
No actually my post about being a baseball player were in response to you saying i had no life. And I said he obtained no warrants, for the 5th time…You called me a child, first. Keep trying, Rainjack, your not very good at this whole tit for tat thing partner. my previous career has nothing to do with the patriot act. It has everything to do with your 1st post towards me saying i was a child and had no life, because all you can do is throw insults, so you will be responded to in that way.
Geez - how can I word this so that you can understand it? let’s try it a different way. You said what the President is doing is illegal. Forget about no warrant being issued. I don’t know when a President has ever been served a warrant.
For the monitoring of selected ovreseas calls to be illegal, a law has to have been broken. I asked you to prove that a law was broken. You have yet to even come close to addressing that. You seem to think that a warrant means something.
And FYI - being a professional athlete does not make you any less childish. So I’m still wondering what that little dick waving tantrum was about.
[/quote]
I guess were arguing over semantics, dipshit. See, Bush needed to go back and report what he’d done, if not it is called unchecked powers, which shouldnt be tolerated. Im looking up the name of the law as we speak, and since you insist, will get back to you on it. Usually you need warrants to spy on private citizens phone calls, thats what I was speaking of. And FYI- the pro athlete remark was made because of your ignorance of saying I had a sad life because I was unintelligent, and I was simply pointing out quite the contrary. And “dick waving”, well, ummm I dont know what that is. PROVE to me I was dick waving. Youll have to explain. Is that a game y’all play down there in redneckville??
I am assuming this is in response to the post above on ECHELON. If that’s the case, then let me say, I think not.
There is a distinction to be made, but not the one you’re making.
To quote Mark Levin, “Under the ECHELON program, the NSA and certain foreign intelligence agencies throw an extremely wide net over virtually all electronic communications world-wide. There are no warrants. No probable cause requirements. No FISA court. And information is intercepted that is communicated solely between U.S. citizens within the U.S., which may not be the purpose of the program but, nonetheless, is a consequence of the program. ECHELON has been around for some time. The media and members of Congress didn’t accuse Bill Clinton, under whose administration the program apparently moved into full swing, of “domestic spying” or violating the Constitution. Is ECHELON constitutional? Congress hasn’t defunded it. So, it seems to me this entire current debate, unleashed by the New York Times last week, about expanding the NSA’s eavesdropping authority (exactly what is expanded and how, we still aren’t certain) is, well, disconnected from reality.”
The actual distinction is targeted surveillance, versus this sort of wide-net surveillance. Which do you find more problematic?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston, I think the difference is specific targetting of US citizens by US intelligence agencies while on US soil.
Somehow I suspect you know that though.
The technology and capability have been around for a long time now. My pizza orders back to 1980 are probably on file somewhere…[/quote]
For my friend Rainjack:
WRT illegalites of Bush’s spying efforts, although you will find loopholes and still support your hero, I present sen. Mcain’s remarks, as well as other remarks by Lindsey Graham in this article. Note as to NO explanation as to why Bush didnt use the FISA protocol…and as far as anyone can tell it cannot and should not be gotten around…