http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush/index.html#wiretappin

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Monday he intends to continue using secret wiretaps to monitor activities of people in the United States suspected of being connected to al Qaeda. "To save American lives we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks," Bush said during a year-end news conference at the White House."

All you anarchists out there, better pray to your new god, the nsa.

12/19/2005 2:20:21 PM

great, get wiretaps, BUT DO IT BY GETTING A WARRANT, YOU FUCKING TERRORISTS

12/19/2005 2:23:41 PM

you don't have to worry about it if you aren't making international calls to Arabland.

12/19/2005 2:24:59 PM

That used to be my philosophy ^

But not anymore. I understand the need for the wiretaps, but at the same time, it just isn't right. I should be able to call islamabad if I want to. That's what living in America is all about, the freedom to make your own choices without fear of retribution from the government.

I'm so mixed, because if they tapped my calls, no big deal. I'm an honest citizen. But I should have the right to use my phone without fear of the government snooping. But I want the government snooping in on the bad guys... I'm really right down the middle on this one and can see clear evidence supporting both sides.

12/19/2005 2:28:41 PM

There is no down the middle on this you idiot.

What, you think freedom is free and easy? Millions of people have died to give us freedom and I'd rather risk a random terrorist attack with a 5% chance of occuring rather then having the government snooping in on phone conversations. This is getting rediculously out of hand.

12/19/2005 2:30:43 PM

Office phones of all International studens were tapped immediatey after 9/11 across the US. It shouldn't be a concern to you if you are not a criminal.

12/19/2005 2:31:04 PM

I don't care who listens in on my phonecalls to Islamabad or anywhere else if it means that when the asshole selling them a nuke does the same thing he gets caught.

As long as they can't get me for some mundane shit they overheard.

If the rule is, they can listen but destroy it afterwards and I'm only liable for terror-related crimes, they can watch me while I'm having sex for all I care.

12/19/2005 2:31:10 PM

Quote :

"There is no down the middle on this you idiot."

1. Chill out. we can actually talk without third-grade name calling.
2. If we had a wiretap and a permit to search Muhammad Atta's computer, 9/11 would have never happened.

12/19/2005 2:32:30 PM

I saw a conspiracy dcumentary that said that Atta is still alive and well in Saudi Arabia.

12/19/2005 2:34:55 PM

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/sections/section_1802.html

12/19/2005 2:36:02 PM

I name call because some of you really are idiots. There's no point to logical discourse.

And by the way, if the FBI wanted too it could obtain and search the computer of any American citizen as well as place wiretaps and such on their equipment by getting a warrant. That sir, is why I drop insults like "idiot, moron" and "dumbass" on you, and others.

12/19/2005 2:36:31 PM

if there was enough evidence to tap atta's phone, there was enough evidence to get a warrant to do so.

ok tgd, I'll bite. Can you show me that the attorney general and president did everything required by that statute?

Section 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

(a)(1) 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 if the Attorney General
certifies in writing under oath that -
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications
transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between
or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2),
or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than
the spoken communications of individuals, from property or
premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign
power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this
title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance
will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United
States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such
surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under
section 1801(h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and
any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at
least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the
Attorney General determines immediate action is required and
notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures
and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may
be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General's
certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The
Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and
shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808(a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to
the court established under section 1803(a) of this title a copy of
his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under
security measures established by the Chief Justice with the
concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the
Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless -
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the
surveillance is made under sections 1801(h)(4) and 1804 of this
title; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of
the surveillance under section 1806(f) of this title.
(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this
subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified
communication common carrier to -
(A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical
assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in
such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum
of interference with the services that such carrier is providing
its customers; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney
General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records
concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such
carrier wishes to retain.
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such
carrier for furnishing such aid.
(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are
authorized if the President has, by written authorization,
empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court
having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge
to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law,
grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title,
approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of
a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to
grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely
as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section
unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of
communications of any United States person.




[Edited on December 19, 2005 at 2:39 PM. Reason : ,]

12/19/2005 2:36:45 PM

well, a warrant is a whole lot different from doing something conspicously.

12/19/2005 2:37:26 PM

^ No, it's really not. Getting a warrant does not in any way constitute sending al-Qaeda a fucking warning.

^^ Of course not. He's "not a lawyer, Tim."

[Edited on December 19, 2005 at 2:44 PM. Reason : ...]

12/19/2005 2:44:02 PM

What?

isn't it different if I tap your phone and leave a message at the door saying that I have a warrant compared to if you never get to know if you were under scrutiny?

12/19/2005 2:45:23 PM

No gamecat.

You obviously haven't had a warrant out in your name.

They like, call your house and stuff and tell you to bail before the cops get there.

12/19/2005 2:45:26 PM

issuing a warrant is essentially counter productive involving issues of national security. If we had a tap on Atta... 9/11 woulnd't have happened.

[Edited on December 19, 2005 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2005 2:46:58 PM

could you explain how that's the case? it's a "secret court" they're supposed to get permission from, it's not like the warrants are published in the daily newspaper

and again, if there was enough evidence to tap atta's phone, there was enough evidence to get a warrant to do so.

[Edited on December 19, 2005 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2005 2:48:17 PM

The entire idea of having a "secret code" is to officially archive confidential details of who was wiretapped.

12/19/2005 2:49:23 PM

Quote :

"DirtyGreek: Can you show me that the attorney general and president did everything required by that statute?"

Beyond the President's and Attorney General's claims that they did everything required by that statute? No, I can't. I don't exactly have government security clearances.

But we all know Bush is an evil liar anyway, and especially that turncoat Hispanic-in-Name-Only Gonzalez, so I suppose this entire line of debate is moot anyway. Carry on.

12/19/2005 2:50:13 PM

I'm not saying anything of the sort. All I'm pointing out is that your linking to the statute in no way helps anyone's argument that they followed that statute.

they need to prove they did before anyone can believe them. I'm not assuming guilt here, but the fact that their only responses so far are "we did so follow the law! the constitution!" makes me kinda suspicious

12/19/2005 2:52:07 PM

3 hours and no reply. Hmm...

12/19/2005 5:42:05 PM

What were you wanting me to say? I'm not arrogant enough to think the President needs to "prove" every decision or action he takes to my satisfaction. The two of you obviously are. There's not really much to debate.

12/19/2005 10:52:40 PM

you don't think the president needs to PROVE that he didn't break the law? You don't think that, when constitutional scholars and senators are saying he did, he needs to prove he didn't? This is an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE that he's accused of, and he's admitted to it but says that he followed "the law," and as of yet, they haven't come close to explaining what law he followed.

You're obviously lying, tgd, because I know you're smarter than this.

12/19/2005 10:55:23 PM

Quote :

"DirtyGreek: you don't think the president needs to PROVE that he didn't break the law?"

Nice switch, you've clearly been taking debate lessons from Gamecat.

I don't think the President needs to prove to my satisfaction that he's fulfilled the requirements of any given statute in the United States Code, no.

---

Quote :

"DirtyGreek: You don't think that, when constitutional scholars and senators are saying he did, he needs to prove he didn't?"

So your argument is that whenever a constitutional scholar or a senator says a law has been broken, every President should prove to your satisfaction that it hasn't? Or just Bush?

Like I said to Gamecat, we have 7 old people in robes who decide if a law was broken. We don't turn everything over to academics and politicians.

---

Quote :

"DirtyGreek: This is an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE that he's accused of, and he's admitted to it but says that he followed "the law," and as of yet, they haven't come close to explaining what law he followed."

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. I'm surprised you people haven't learned that yet.

Regardless, plz to reference Article III of the Constitution.

---

Quote :

"DirtyGreek: You're obviously lying, tgd, because I know you're smarter than this."

I've actually been thinking the same of both you and Gamecat. For such an open-and-shut case, I kind of expected more coherent arguments...

[Edited on December 19, 2005 at 11:26 PM. Reason : ---]

12/19/2005 11:25:29 PM

sigh. i'm going to bed, but rest assured, we'll continue this tomorrow.

12/19/2005 11:28:54 PM

"It shouldn't be a concern to you if you are not a criminal"

So by that logic it shouldn't be your concern for police to just randomly come in your home and go through your things unless you have something to hide right? After all, you have nothing to hide so I assume you would be completely fine with them doing that...

12/20/2005 9:51:43 AM

Quote :

"As long as they can't get me for some mundane shit they overheard"

you have more faith in our gov't than i, sir

12/20/2005 10:23:28 AM

I can't wait for all the "conservatives" to come out saying that it's okay for the government to invade your life as long as you're not doing anything wrong.

12/20/2005 10:38:40 AM

My thinking is this: It is ok for the government to bypass normal channels of investigation, such as a regular warrant, given the understanding that any information obtained or discovered as a result of same cannot be used in a court of law other than deportation proceedings.

12/20/2005 11:20:55 AM

yeah, but they're still SPYING ON YOU. You don't care if they're spying on you, so long as they can't use it against you? Seems to me it still would suck to know they're watching your every move.

12/20/2005 11:26:14 AM

Quote :

"It shouldn't be a concern to you if you are not a criminal. "

That is a quite pussy way of looking at this. They can wiretap all they want, and get a secret warrant RETROACTIVELY from a secret court, but refuse to do so. Why not?

I don't trust my government to do the right thing 100% of the time. Right now we have american citizens in indefinate custody without a jury trial, babies on do-not-fly lists, and students getting shaken down after checking out books for school assignments. That's soviet-level asshattery.

12/20/2005 11:42:27 AM

Quote :

"This is an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE that he's accused of, and he's admitted to it but says that he followed "the law," "

Seems to me that you've already decided he's guilty. He says "Yes, we had wiretaps, but they were done in accordance with the law." You say "OMG! He admitted to breaking the law!"

How would you like him to prove that he followed the law? I suppose he could release all of the related documents, but--assuming the law was followed--wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the wiretaps in the first place? Where are the facts that all of these "constitutional scholars and senators" have that prove he did break the law? I thought they were all left in the dark about the whole thing.

Quote :

"(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;"

Does anyone know if "a United States person" is a US citizen, or just someone physically in the United States (without respect to their legal status)?

12/20/2005 12:00:52 PM

Bush, Rice, Gonzalez, etc have said nothing other than "its being reviewed and is a constitutial right" to this mess. They don't have to release the findings of their spying, just the specific law that allows this.

Real conservatives are dropping this administration like a hot potato. When a true believer like Dick Armey is on the ACLU board, you know something is jacked up.

12/20/2005 12:49:55 PM

Quote :

"It is ok for the government to bypass normal channels of investigation, such as a regular warrant, given the understanding that any information obtained or discovered as a result of same cannot be used in a court of law other than deportation proceedings."

no need for a court of law when they can SHIP YOUR ASS TO A FOREIGN TORTURE PRISON

seriously

the Hitler comparisons missed the mark

but i'm starting to think this man is the rebirth of stalin

12/20/2005 12:52:48 PM

^^^ that was discussed in this thread

Look in Section 1801, subpart i:

Quote :

"[edit: tried to fix the formatting, but then realized it wasn't worth the effort ] (i) ''United States person'' means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101(a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. that refers to what you have at the beginning: (a) ''Foreign power'' means - (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States; (2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons; (3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments; (4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; (5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or (6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. (b) ''Agent of a foreign power'' means - (1) any person other than a United States person, who - (A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section; (B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person's presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or (2) any person who - (A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power; (D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or (E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C). (c) ''International terrorism'' means activities that - (1) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State; (2) appear to be intended - (A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (C) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and (3) 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."

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=373187&page=2

but still, after all the arguing tgd and I have done about it, it seems to me that particular statute says what bush did was illegal. It says the attorney general must provide, in writing, under oath, that there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance
will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United
States person is a party"

the definition of "united states person" is (i) ''United States person'' means a citizen of the United
States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as
defined in section 1101(a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated
association a substantial number of members of which are citizens
of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent
residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United
States, but does not include a corporation or an association
which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2),
or (3) of this section.

there's also this, however

Quote :

"this is just 1 statute. I'm sure the true constitutional scholars that get employed by all three branches of the government (and particularly the Article II experts that are usually employed across presidential terms) will cite more than just this statute for justification."

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 1:11 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2005 1:11:05 PM

Quote :

"Seems to me that you've already decided he's guilty. He says "Yes, we had wiretaps, but they were done in accordance with the law." You say "OMG! He admitted to breaking the law!""

I've heard a lot of legal experts speaking or writing about this in the past few days, along with a lot of politicians and public figures. The vast majority of them seem to be saying that, at the very best, it is on shaky legal ground.

The simple fact of the matter is that if there is a court to handle these warrants, a secret court no less, along with statutes prescribing the uses of the court, it is probably illegal to knowingly circumvent the court. The FISA court was made with terrorism in mind. It gives the ability to search and then retroactively get a warrant. It gives the government free reign for 14 days after an attack. Of the roughly 19,000 warrants it has gone over, only five have been denied.

So I ask you, then, supporters of the spying, WHAT IN THE FUCK IS FISA FOR IF NOT TO APPROVE THESE SEARCHES?

12/20/2005 1:12:05 PM

According to that definition, Atta wouldn't even have qualified as a "united states person". He wasn't a permanent resident, I believe.

12/20/2005 1:12:27 PM

why the hell do people keep bringing up atta? They spied on u.s. citizens, and that's what I'm upset about.

however, what I still DON'T understand is why, if there was so much evidence against atta that he needed to be wiretapped, they couldn't get secret court clearance for spying on him?

Quote :

"The simple fact of the matter is that if there is a court to handle these warrants, a secret court no less, along with statutes prescribing the uses of the court, it is probably illegal to knowingly circumvent the court. The FISA court was made with terrorism in mind. It gives the ability to search and then retroactively get a warrant. It gives the government free reign for 14 days after an attack. Of the roughly 19,000 warrants it has gone over, only five have been denied. So I ask you, then, supporters of the spying, WHAT IN THE FUCK IS FISA FOR IF NOT TO APPROVE THESE SEARCHES?"

exactly, and this is what makes this so frightening. If they can get a warrant, even retroactively, and only 5 out of 19,000 have been denied, what made it so necessary to NOT get one at all? Were they spying on someone the court wouldn't allow them to? anti-war activists, etc?

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 1:15 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2005 1:13:22 PM

Atta has to be brought up because he just has to be. Do you need an explanation?

12/20/2005 1:14:56 PM

fuck atta. What I'm discussing here is the spying on united states citizens, of which atta was not one.

12/20/2005 1:16:06 PM

A moot point of concern, then. If you're an American citizen networked with turrists, you deserve to be wiretapped. I don't see the problem.

12/20/2005 1:18:58 PM

Clearly you don't.

12/20/2005 1:24:06 PM

They aren't tapping everyone's phones. They don't have the capability to do that.

12/20/2005 1:24:46 PM

Quote :

"A moot point of concern, then. If you're an American citizen networked with turrists, you deserve to be wiretapped. I don't see the problem. "

a.) we have absolutely no reason to think that everyone who was wiretapped actually WAS affiliated with terrorists. the government lies all the time - why should we assume they're telling the truth now?
b.) it doesn't have to be PROVEN that you are affiliated with terrorists in order for you to be wiretapped.
c.) it doesn't matter if you see the problem, because the problem is (allegedly) that the president broke the law

12/20/2005 2:54:44 PM

a) We don't know who was wiretapped.
b) Proven to whom? You and me?
c) Broke the law in order to protect our lives. Sue him.

12/20/2005 2:57:55 PM

a.) no, we don't, except that they were american citizens.
b.) no, proven to the law.
c.) Listen, there was no NEED for him to break the law to "protect our lives." he could have gone to the court, even AFTER wiretapping, and asked for a warrant retroactively. only 5 of 19,000 have been denied. who was he spying on that he felt he wouldn't be given permission to spy on in these circumstances?

btw

http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?record=2563

Quote :

"According to recent press reports, Pentagon officials have been spying on what they call "suspicious" meetings by civilian groups, including student groups opposed to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel. The story, first reported by Lisa Myers and NBC News last week, noted that Pentagon investigators had records pertaining to April protests at the State University of New York at Albany and William Patterson College in New Jersey. A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school's LGBT advocacy group OUTlaw, which was classified as "possibly violent" by the Pentagon. A UC-Santa Cruz "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protest, which included a gay kiss-in, was labeled as a "credible threat" of terrorism."

also

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?ei=5065&en=0384c4fe8724565d&ex=1135746000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show. F.B.I. officials said Monday that their investigators had no interest in monitoring political or social activities and that any investigations that touched on advocacy groups were driven by evidence of criminal or violent activity at public protests and in other settings. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general, loosened restrictions on the F.B.I.'s investigative powers, giving the bureau greater ability to visit and monitor Web sites, mosques and other public entities in developing terrorism leads. The bureau has used that authority to investigate not only groups with suspected ties to foreign terrorists, but also protest groups suspected of having links to violent or disruptive activities."

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2005 3:04:37 PM

So basically, a warrentless wire tap is legal if those being monitored are not US citizens or permanent resident aliens. Where is there proof that US citizens were wire tapped by the NSA? The article that starts the "More spying on us" thread only seems to mention persons in the United States, not United States persons.

Quote :

"It says the attorney general must provide, in writing, under oath, that there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party""

Has the AG not provided this written oath? I don't know--I haven't seen anything that says yes he did or no he did not. If the government is only intercepting calls between known/suspected terrorists and where at least one end of the communciation is outside of the US, I'd say that odds are pretty good that the intercepted calls would not involve a United States person.

Quote :

"The vast majority of them seem to be saying that, at the very best, it is on shaky legal ground."

True, but it's all based on supposition. Supposition that's not that different from what you see here on TWW. They just happen to be on TV. I'm not saying that there should not be an investigation if something is fishy, but with the information that's publicly available, anything those people (legal experts, news commentators, etc) say on the news is nothing more than hypothesizing.

As for the FBI, isn't one of their jobs to investigate possibly subversive groups inside the US?

12/20/2005 5:11:01 PM

Quote :

" what I still DON'T understand is why, if there was so much evidence against atta that he needed to be wiretapped, they couldn't get secret court clearance for spying on him?"

That's what the big deal is about, it seems. There was a non-sketchy, legal way for them to tap people's phones in the same way they did anyway, but they didn't do it. It's like they are trying to hide something...

12/20/2005 5:21:59 PM

The way I understood it was that they wanted to tap phones as quickly as possible.

12/20/2005 5:24:49 PM