.....which satisies the ludicrous nattering nabobs, but not the rest of the us, is noted and commented upon here.
Key point:
"This reasoning is ludicrous. Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy when seeking to communicate with persons outside the United States. U.S. privacy law consequently does not — cannot — apply. Moreover, virtually every intelligence agency in the world is pursuing al Qaeda operatives and intercepting their communications. In Judge Taylor’s perfect world, only the U.S. — the primary target of al Qaeda — would be forbidden to do so. "
It is time for those of us who have good common sense to understand how important this matter is to take action to protect ourselves and our nation.
It's time to realize that we cannot allow the anally retentive "illegal surveillance" crowd to put the rest of us in danger because of their insistence in fulfilling their misplaced priorities, or their political ambitions.
Bubba,
ReplyDeleteI'm just curious and I'm asking a straight-forward question here... would your position on this issue be unchanged if, hypothetically speaking of course, the Bush administration came out tomorrow and announced that in order to better help catch terrorists, actually ALL domestic calls were being monitored?
Let's just say for example that the government set up a system to monitor all calls for keywords and then flagged some of those calls, they could be from New York to LA or from your house to your neighbor's house. Would you still find this acceptable?
I'm not saying that is what is happening now, I'm simply asking what your position would be if this was the case.
No, it would not be unchanged.
ReplyDeleteA blanket monitering would put it NSA surveillance in the same camera as the traffic cameras mentioed in the next thread.
The only difference between the programs then would be that the NSA programs would not be a way for the (federal) government to seperate us from our money.
Under the FISA act of 1978, the government can do what you are asking Bubba. The only thing they must do, and they can do it up to 4 days after the fact, is get a warrant. It's not that hard, they would just like too much control and power. We should never let the system of checks and balances be broken, if we do the terrorist truly have won.
ReplyDeleteThanks for answering my question Bubba, I appreciate it. I've noted your response for future reference. I suspect we'll be discussing this issue again :-)
ReplyDelete"The only thing they must do, and they can do it up to 4 days after the fact, is get a warrant.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely inncorrect.
Here's why.
Noteworthy:
"In its opinion, the Court of Review said the FISA Court had, in effect, attempted to unilaterally impose the old 1995 rules. 'In doing so, the FISA Court erred,' the ruling read. 'It did not provide any constitutional basis for its action — we think there is none — and misconstrued the main statutory provision on which it relied.' The FISA Court, according to the ruling, 'refus[ed] to consider the legal significance of the Patriot Act's crucial amendments' and 'may well have exceeded the constitutional bounds' governing the courts by asserting 'authority to govern the internal organization and investigative procedures of the Department of Justice.'
And then the Court of Review did one more thing, something that has repercussions in today's surveillance controversy.
***** Not only could the FISA Court not tell the president how do to his work, the Court of Review said, but the president also had the 'inherent authority' under the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining any warrant — from the FISA Court or anyone else.*******
Referring to an earlier case, known as Truong, which dealt with surveillance before FISA was passed, the Court of Review wrote: 'The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.'"
And there is presidential precedent too.
There are many more instances in U.S. history that documents this truth.
Funny, we didn't hear any howls of outrage back then, did we?
One more thing.....you said:
"We should never let the system of checks and balances be broken, if we do the terrorist truly have won."
That's bassackwards thinking.
If we do what you and others want us to do on this issue, the terrorists probably WILL win.
These programs are clearly legal, whether some people like it or not.
Unfortunately, Bubba, the Supreme Court rejected the "inherent authority" argument in its Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling in June.
ReplyDeleteIf they're going to be wiretapping U.S. citizens in this country, they need a warrant. End of story.
Unfortunately Lex, you're wrong in the instance we are talking about.
ReplyDeleteArlen
Spector.
Key point:
"But three federal appeals court decisions suggest the president may be right."
Stop reading Glen Greenwald. Besides his sockpuppetry, his nonsense will rot your brian.
Look at that.....even thinking about Greenwald is enough to damage my typing skills.
ReplyDeleteLex wrote:
ReplyDelete"If they're going to be wiretapping U.S. citizens in this country, they need a warrant. End of story."
Yes, I believe that's the law.
"Wiretapping", however, has nothing to do with the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Two entirely and separate operations. The NSA does not have people sitting around with headphones listening to people's phone calls. End of story.
It's amazing the amount of false information the uninformed believe these days because the hear it on TV or read it in some biased news report or blog discussion on the internet. Simply amazing. Anybody who believes they know much at all about wiretapping, electronic surveillance, or anti-terrorist operations when they've never been personally involved in any of it is an idiot. And possibly dangerous.
Thanks for pointing out his use of the word "wiretapping", jaycee. I missed it the first time around.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, of course.
I am amazed that a professional journalist like Lex gets his facts substantially wrong when he posts on blogs. Maybe he's just used to having an N&R factchecker do the work for him.
Umm, the N&R DOES use factcheckers, don't they?
Bubba, there are several different and distinct programs that NSA and other intel and law enforcement agencies conduct that target electronic communications. Only one is a "wiretap" which describes an operation in which spoken communications are listened to and recorded. These are usually conducted via warrant by LE agencies.
ReplyDeleteOther programs involve collecting and analyzing phone/cellular communications patterns, phone toll analysis, email analysis, and using electronic intercepts of known cell phone signals to pinpoint the phone location. Few are conducted in the U.S., and usually by federal LE agencies. Many are conducted solely on comms outside the U.S., usually by NSA. For example, NSA can pinpoint a known cell phone signal originating in, say, Mosul, Iraq, and dispatch troops to capture the user. (How this violates Lex Alexander's "civil rights" in downtown Greensboro I have yet to figure out, and I guess I never will!)
But, regardless, lesser informed people scream the term "Wiretap!" in their ignorance to describe any and all electronic surveillance programs, both inside and outside the U.S.
It's sorta like calling every flower a "rose"...