There's no "if"s, "and"s or "but"s about it.....These kind of surveillance programs WORK. And as we know, they are LEGAL.
Excerpts:
"Let's emphasize that again: The plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications. Which leads us to wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or the New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs."
"In short, Democrats who claim to want "focus" on the war on terror have wanted it fought without the intelligence, interrogation and detention tools necessary to win it. And if they cite "cooperation" with our allies as some kind of magical answer, they should be reminded that the British and other European legal systems generally permit far more intrusive surveillance and detention policies than the Bush Administration has ever contemplated. Does anyone think that when the British interrogate those 20 or so suspects this week that they will recoil at harsh or stressful questioning?"
Classic case of twisting the true position of the opposition to suit your needs. The left does not oppose the programs that caught these terrorists, they oppose the *illegal* nature of them such as not obtaining warrants to conduct survelliance within the law.
ReplyDeleteWhich is funny because Scotland Yard and the British authorities actually DID obtain warrants to conduct this operation and look, it acutally worked and did not hamper their efforts to capture the bad guys.
Amazing that you can work within the law and STILL do your job isn't it?
roger, oh roger...
ReplyDeleteSo what legal authority has declared the NSA's program "illegal,", hmmm?
NONE.
The only people who claim it's "illegal" are the Dems/libs who oppose anything President Bush or the administration does, even if it endangers US citizens. The more people die, the happier the Dems/libs are. I'm sure guys like you were soooo disapointed that the terror plot was thwarted and you were robbed of another mass killing of US citizens to use to beat up the administration.
Thanks for fullfilling a typical stereotype there Jaycee and for putting words in my mouth. I am actually quite pleased they caught these terrorists, AND I'm glad they did it within the law. I cannot ask for anything else.
ReplyDeleteAnd YES there are plenty of people that know what our government is doing in regards to domestic spying is illegal including the American Bar Association, Senators from your own party like Arlen Spector, Constitutional Scholars and many others.
"Arlen Spector"
ReplyDeleteLOL! As if.......
The programs are legal. Programs of that sort are responsible for thwarting the plot in question.
Be part of the solution, or remain part of the problem, Roger.
"The American Bar Association"?
ReplyDeleteAre you &^%$* kidding?
They just want more reasons for "victims" to sue.
roger: I, too, am glad they caught them "within the law." And that includes using the lawful NSA intercept program.
ReplyDeleteHmmm...so the ABA now has the authority to adjudicate legal issues and declare something "illegal?" A senator who "knows" something is illegal has the power to make a legally binding proclamation under our laws?
I don't think so...there's this thing called the U.S Constitution, and I don't recall it granting that power to the ABA. Or any senator.
2 things. Are you stating that a law hasn't been broken until someone declares the wiretapping to be illegal? If so, are a rapists' actions illegal when he does them, or only when he is found guilty of them?
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding that the biggest breakin this particular case was due to an undercover agent/cop. If so, then the rest of the stuff would have been under reasonable suspicion, and fully legitimate. No one has issues with warrants. The issues are around whether or not the President has the right to issue warrants without a court.
I think he needs to go through the FISA court, and I think W thinks that too. But he is doing everything he can to keep someone for actually getting to rule on it. We had a President once that was criticized quite harshly for stonewalling due process about blow jobs. Don't you think that this is a tad more serious?
penguin, no one is guilty in this country until convicted in a court of law. A rapist is not a convicted rapist until he's been arrested and convicted in court. Does the term "innocent until proven guilty" ring a bell with you?
ReplyDeleteHas any NSA intercept program been challenged and taken to court and found guilty/liable? No.
In some circumstances, intel gathering actions can be taken with out warrants. The President has powers to do so, and they haven't been successfully challenged in a court of law and declared illegal. So they are legal. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's just an opinion. Only a court can find someone guilty.
If you were a newspaper reporter and wrote an article naming someone as a "rapist" before that person had been arrested, charged, or convicted, you'd find yourself unemployed and on the wrong end of a lawsuit. Why do you think it's OK to treat the government or the President with any less lattitude?
So, by that reasoning, the President could do anything he wants to, until a court convicts him and tells him to stop? OK, so how is one supposed to challenge the Presidents authority to do potentially illegal things unless he is doing it in the open?
ReplyDeleteObviously, a rapist is considered innocent until proven guilty, but do we call the police criminals for finding a potential crime/criminal? Of course we don't. But that is exactly what the right wing nutjobs at the White House have done to reporters who caught them in a potential crime.
You see, through secrecy, the terrorists win. They want to disrupt our lives. They want to make us live in fear. They want us to lose our freedom. Every time the President circumvents a law, a process, a check, he is ceding the high road to the terrorists.
Suppose the President decides that it is OK to torture detainees. There is a law that says that he cannot legally do so. If he orders it anyway, is it legal until someone finds out? Or was it illegal all along and he just has to stop doing it once a court rules that bamboo shoots under the fingernails is indeed torture?
While your semantics are strong, you must feel like it is hard to really defend things like this with the equivalent of "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
"OK, so how is one supposed to challenge the Presidents authority to do potentially illegal things unless he is doing it in the open?"
ReplyDeleteChallenge it in federal court.
Those challenges to the various sureillance programs in question have NOT been successful.
In addition to being effective (when not leaked by the NYT and others), the programs are legal.
You side is WRONG on this, and on other issues related to national security.
Once again, you are encouraged to be a part of the SOLUTION, not a part of the problem.
"....specifically which liberal-opposed programs were used to foil this plot."
ReplyDeleteAll of the ones listed in my original thread,as detailed by the WSJ editorial, as are currently being legally conducted by the Administration.
One more final time: Read the link again, Stew.
What do you not understand about what I say on this matter?
"Add" all you want, Stew.
ReplyDeleteYour long winded answer proves that you refuse to understand the issue, Stew
You're still wrong.
The surveillance programs used by the intelligence service of this country are legal.
Here is the legal basis for the intercept program.
Excerpt:
"There are, of course, liberal law professors who would like the law to be different from what it is. They are free to develop theories according to which the Supreme Court, should it someday address this issue directly, would rule as they wish. But the administration is entitled to rely on the law as it currently exists. And there is simply no question about the fact that under the Constitution and all controlling precedents, the NSA intercept program is legal."
And, as we know, the New York Times has admitted the Swift program is legal. They use that fact to rationalize yet again their violation of laws concerning revelation of classified surveillance programs.
All the concerted effort by people like you will not change the facts to fit a rationalization of your opinions.
Sorry. Pick another topic.
potato, US intelligence and the NSA program were used to aid Britain in foiling this terrorist act. The Brits didn't do it on their own. The programs the liberals love to hate are exactly the programs that supplied vital information to combat terrorists and help insure the safety of American citizens. That's what they're designed to do, that's how they work, and they worked extremely well, despite hand-wringing and wailing and gnashing of teeth by liberals who would rather see 3,000 innocents killed than prevent it by using "unseemly" programs.
ReplyDeleteYou see, there's a confederation of democracies who work together in the Global War On Terror. That's why it's called "Global." Terrorists act in concert with one another without regard for national borders or regional areas, so must the forces for freedom work against them on an international scale.
"Your last comment is a total non sequitur."
ReplyDeleteSorry. Pick another topic. You blew it on this one, my friend.
Jaycee, it's futile to discuss topics like this with certain people when their reading comprehension skills are dulled by their position point myopia.
You're right, Bubba.
ReplyDeleteI post explanations not for the potatostews of the world, but for others that might read this and are not yet blinded by their anti-Bush hatred.
The whining and moaning of the "illegal warrantless and no probable cause surveillance programs" crowd sure rings hollow, doesn't it, jaycee?
ReplyDeleteBubba, the enormous intricacies and legal machinations surrounding 4th Amendment protections against "unreasonable searches" are tough for a well-schooled lawyer to get a handle on, much less a close-minded liberal layman.
ReplyDeleteThe US government in it's Attorney General's office, NSA, FBI, CIA, and other 3-letter acronym services have scores of lawyers who specialize in this issue exclusively. They know every nuance and case-law example and are intimately familiar with what can and cannot be done legally to monitor electronic communications.
Laymen commenting on the subject are usually ill-informed, driven by political bias and ignorance, and frequently WRONG. Most think "entrapment" is when the radar cop catches you at the bottom of a hill from behind a billboard.
The majority of discussion on this subject involves people reading online blogs or editorial comment (usually biased) and repeating said comments with which they agree as if they were fact.
If the general public knew each and every little fact about these programs they would know and understand the legal parameters that the government lawyers go to great lengths to protect.
Unfortunately, politics rears it's ugly head in these discussions and reality goes out the window.
I wonder if those same "Scores" of lawyers were the ones who told Nixon it was okay to spy on fellow Americans and make his infamous lists. Yeah, they probably were and therefore they cannot be in the wrong. Is that what you are saying Jaycee?
ReplyDeleteJust because the people in power have many laywers doesn't make them right. And how would we know anyway, we are not even allowed to debate the issue or bring it before a court for review since Bush and Co. keep citing national security concerns.
When a program is even too secret for a secret, governement court to review, I don't care what you say or claim, something is wrong with that.
roger, please provide some evidence that Nixon making "lists" was illegal. Was there a criminal prosecution resulting in a court conviction for keeping "lists?"
ReplyDeleteAlso provide evidence, such as a criminal court conviction, that Nixon had your so-called "spy on fellow American" programs or that they were illegal.
It's easy to spout BS about imagined past history, not so easy to prove what you say, now is it?
So you'd be in favor of revealing each and every secret intelligence program the US has in operation? Even if it results in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, and the murder of sources of information or spies we rely on to keep our nation safe?
Some of us "know" what's going on. Just because you don't "know" don't hamper the efforts of those working hard to protect YOU.
You just lost every shred of any credibility you ever had Jaycee. Arguing FOR what Nixon did is nothing but the delusional ranting of a GOP partisan. Nixon stepped down before he could be impeached so he wouldn't have to suffer the humiliation of going through criminal proceedings. I defy you to find one historian who thinks what Nixon did was legal or even good for the country and our security. Just one. I dare you.
ReplyDeleteroger, I'm not arguing *for* anything, You made a questionable statement, now back it up. The question was not what anyone "thinks" but on facts. Please give evidence to support your statement. If you can't, please apologize for lying and trying to rewrite history.
ReplyDeleteNow please answer my questions:
"So you'd be in favor of revealing each and every secret intelligence program the US has in operation? Even if it results in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, and the murder of sources of information or spies we rely on to keep our nation safe?"
There is nothing questionable in my statement regarding Nixon. I hate to break this to you Jaycee, but history is on my side in this argument. Its the reason why Nixon left office, its the reason my G. Gordon Liddy went to jail, its the reason why the FISA court was created in the first place.
ReplyDeleteSo the burden of proof is on YOU, not me to back up your outlandish statements. You need to prove to me and the rest of the people reading this blog that what Nixon did had value to the safety and security of the United States. YOU not, I, need to provide the references to support a position that is counter to over 30 years of historical and civic responsibility.
And to demonstrate that I for one AM willing to answer your questions, no, I am not for revealing all secret programs the government has in place to monitor communications, PROVIDED that I am assured that my congress and my courts are watching out for my rights as an American citizen.
This is clearly not the case to date. No one can assure me, you, nor anyone else of this country that they have probable cause to tap my phone, monitor my email, my financial records or anything else related to my personal affects. There is no court in the land that can review these programs, so there is no legal guarantee that what is being done is supported by the Constitution.
Bush's "Trust me and my lawyers" routine simply isn't good enough. Nixon said this too... "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal". Again, we all know how that went and he was as far from legal as he could be. So until I have some assurances from this administration in the form of checks and balances from my elected representatives, I choose not to support Bush's surveillance polices.
There is no doubt in my mind Roger, that what Nixon did, and what President Bush is doing, is illegal. The 4th ammendment is very specific about search and seizure and FISA was created to close any loopholes that might exist after the Watergate debacle.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for catching terrorists and keeping our country safe, and I'm even willing to watch the government bend the law to do it, but I'm not willing to to have my senator and house representatives told they cannot review the programs because of national security.
roger, please explain and substantiate Nixon's "spying" on fellow Americans and his "infamous" lists. I have a to-do list here on my desk, is it "infamous?" Are you the guy who decides what's "infamous" and what's not? What lists are you talking about? Back up your statement with some evidence, please.
ReplyDeleteI made absolutely no claims about Nixon whatsoever, either about "safety and security" or anything else.
I took no position, I claim no deed or misdeed by Nixon. YOU DID, so back up what you said. Clear enough?
If you're man enough to make brash statements in a public forum, you should be man enough to back them up with FACTS, not your conjecture.
You said, "...PROVIDED that I am assured that my congress and my courts are watching out for my rights as an American citizen." You have been assured by your President and cabinet and others running this war. They have no obligation to send a representative the houses of 250 million people to individually explain the program to each person. You don't have a need to know, and you don't need to know the details of each and every classified operation our country is conducting. That's why the President and others hold almost daily press conferences, so everyone can get the same details (security restrictions kept in mind) at the same time.
You also said, "No one can assure me, you, nor anyone else of this country that they have probable cause to tap my phone, monitor my email, my financial records or anything else related to my personal affects."
Is your phone tapped? Are "they" monitoring your email? Are "they" looking at YOUR bank records? If "they" are it's because you're a terrorist, because that's the only people they're looking at. It's been explained from the President on down time after time after time. If you choose not to believe it, that's your problem, not that of the government that has bent over backwards to tell you about it.
There are, indeed, courts which can address these issues if and when anyone has proof that they are not legal. No one has presented it so far. Why not? Because they're being conducted in a legal manner with regard to YOUR rights. You've been told that over and over and over, and if you choose not to believe it, then that's your problem.
Karen Webb, what you believe in "your mind" is an opinion, not fact. You are not judge and jury on the legality of government programs. Just because you disagree with something or don't think it's proper, that doesn't mean that it's illegal. Courts decide what's legal and what's not, we don't.
But courts cannot decide whats legal and what is not when they are not allowed to review the programs. That was the whole point of my post. I don't disagree with your statement, but it seems you avoided mine altogether.
ReplyDeleteKaren, how do you know what the legal ramifications and restrictions are on what can and can't be heard in court? What source of information are you using to come to that conclusion? Is it what you see on TV news reports (probably biased against the administration) or what you read in newspapers (probably biased against the administration) or what you read in blogs, etc., on the internet (probably biased against the administration)?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, for every event or issue in which we're not personally involved or don't personally witness, we have to rely on the main stream media to provide us with the "facts." You and I can read about the same event from two different sources and come away with an entirely different view.
My question to you would be: What makes you think no "court" is allowed to review any covert programs? Normally someone has to allege being harmed or damaged in order for a lawsuit to be brought, as far as I know that hasn't happened yet with any of these programs. Maybe roger will sue somebody over his library records, I dunno...
penguin, karen and roger, welcome to JayceeWorld(tm), where OJ Simpson really IS trying to find the real killers.
ReplyDeletejaycee regularly trolls my work blog offering the same sort of half-baked "arguments."
Well, Lex, at least I don't make false allegations and claim they're "facts" as you do on here and on your own blog.
ReplyDeleteIf you'd just use these three little words in front of some of your claims *in my opinion* then you'd have some credibility.
Calling on your buddies penguin and roger isn't going to change your lies into truths.
And you continue to show you have absolutely no understanding of the Constitution or our legal system. You should stick to what you know.
You beat me Stew! I was about to post that.
ReplyDeleteI wrote that prior to today's ruling, as you would know if you had the sense to read the date/time stamp on my post. So you're wrong again, due mainly, I guess, from your poor education and lack of rational thought due to your rabid Bush hatred. It makes you blind to the truth and common sense, as evidenced by your written flatulence here.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the ruling today by a liberal, activist lower court judge is not and should not be a reason for the US government to alter what is a legally sanctioned program. An entire nation's anti-terrorist effort will not be dictated by the ACLU, nor should it be.
This ruling is the first step in a legal process. It means virtually nothing in the overall scheme of things.
potatoes, one liberal activist judge's decision does not a legal precedent make.
ReplyDeleteThe ACLU does not dictate the foreign policy of a nation. Stay tuned, I think you'll be entertained.
I love how activist judges agree with the left and presumably "normal" judges rule in favor of prayer in the classroom, against equality and in favor of government secrecy. Activist Judge is a BS phrase. I call BS.
ReplyDeleteWatch for how the spin goes when the Supremes can't come up with a way to justify the program. It will probably be something like "well it wasn't illegal until someone told us to stop. How could we have known?"
Yep, this is no activist judge, at least in this case. She didn't pull the ruling out of thin air, she ruled because a plaintiff(s) brought the case. That's her job, and she actually had the courage to stand up for the 60% of the country that knows what the Bush administration is doing is unconstitutional. Bravo Judge!
ReplyDeleteThe plaintiffs in the case appear to have no "standing" to sue, but the judge ingnored that and issued, in effect, a leftist political statement instead of a verdict. That's exactly what an "activist judge" does.
ReplyDelete*Let's move all of this chatter over to Bubba's new post at the top of the page so we can view all the comments in one place, shall we?*