Secret Wire Tapping of U.S. Citizens...

[DeltAlum]

My opinion...

From the NY Times...

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - "Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

I said in another thread that, unfortunately, I just don't trust President Bush.

In threads long ago, I worried about government spying on domestic groups who might have any kind of leanings against the war in Iraq. That happened during Vietnam, I said.

I worried then, and still do, about some powers of the Patriot Act that seem to me (certainly not a Constitutional Scholar) to be an infringement of our personal rights.

I think The President badly misuses the power of his office.

What will it take for everyone to see that?

Or does it take the hindsight of having seen it happen before?

[AGDee]

I find it frightening that he gets away with so much. People who speak up get "punished" (like the CIA agent who was exposed because her husband spoke up). We have to get through 3 more years. I wonder how much more will change before that happens?

[Optimist Prime]

we re-tain the right to alter or abolish his gov't. So says The Declration of Independence

[Rudey]

Here are some parts you left out of that article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/po...gewanted=print

Defenders of the program say it has been a critical tool in helping disrupt terrorist plots and prevent attacks inside the United States.

Administration officials are confident that existing safeguards are sufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, the officials say. In some cases, they said, the Justice Department eventually seeks warrants if it wants to expand the eavesdropping to include communications confined within the United States. The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues.

Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said.

Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States - including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners - is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation.

What the agency calls a "special collection program" began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, as it looked for new tools to attack terrorism. The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, they said.

In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said.

Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or e-mail messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United States. Usually, though, the government can only target phones and e-mail messages in the United States by first obtaining a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which holds its closed sessions at the Justice Department.

After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now a full general and the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.

It is not clear how much the members of Congress were told about the presidential order and the eavesdropping program. Some of them declined to comment about the matter, while others did not return phone calls.

Some of those who object to the operation argue that is unnecessary. By getting warrants through the foreign intelligence court, the N.S.A. and F.B.I. could eavesdrop on people inside the United States who might be tied to terrorist groups without skirting longstanding rules, they say.

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary:
1) Congressional leaders of both parties knew and approved of this.
2) At least 2 terrorist plots were foiled by this.
3) The program was stopped last year
4) There would be minimal difference in results from a warrantless tap and a warranted tap given that the courts almost always approve the warrants, and usually warrants are obtained eventually.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by AGDee
I find it frightening that he gets away with so much. People who speak up get "punished" (like the CIA agent who was exposed because her husband spoke up). We have to get through 3 more years. I wonder how much more will change before that happens?

Both parties were aware and nobody spokeup.

The CIA case is being investigated and has little resemblance.

-Rudey

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
My opinion...

From the NY Times...

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - "Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

I said in another thread that, unfortunately, I just don't trust President Bush.

In threads long ago, I worried about government spying on domestic groups who might have any kind of leanings against the war in Iraq. That happened during Vietnam, I said.

I worried then, and still do, about some powers of the Patriot Act that seem to me (certainly not a Constitutional Scholar) to be an infringement of our personal rights.

I think The President badly misuses the power of his office.

What will it take for everyone to see that?

Or does it take the hindsight of having seen it happen before?

Since it's been reported in the story that leaders of both parties were aware of the plan before it was implemented, do you feel the same way about the Democratic leaders who agreed to this?

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by KSigkid
...do you feel the same way about the Democratic leaders who agreed to this?

Absolutely.

The difference in my mind is that he had the final yes/no decision.

I'm not a Democrat. Nor am I a Republican.

Since I've been voting, starting when 18 year olds were allowed to vote in 1968, my guess is that I've voted for a nearly equal number of members of each party. (in the early years, most of them lost -- of which I was very proud)

Sorry, but this isn't a GOP vs. Dems thing with me. I just see too many things in President Bush that I have strongly disliked in other politicians in the past.

Again, this is my opinion. You certainly don't have to agree.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Absolutely.

The difference in my mind is that he had the final yes/no decision.

I'm not a Democrat. Nor am I a Republican.

Since I've been voting, starting when 18 year olds were allowed to vote in 1968, my guess is that I've voted for a nearly equal number of members of each party. (in the early years, most of them lost -- of which I was very proud)

Sorry, but this isn't a GOP vs. Dems thing with me. I just see too many things in President Bush that I have strongly disliked in other politicians in the past.

Again, this is my opinion. You certainly don't have to agree.

The thing is that this country isn't run by one person. Others have a voice. The idea of "The buck stops here" is great, but it doesn't reqlinquish other parts of our balanced government of responsibilities and credit. You didn't mention those other congressmen and didn't even include the quote.

And I have to ask this. Knowing it stopped 2 terrorist plots in the 2 years it existed, do you wish it had never existed?

-Rudey

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Absolutely.

The difference in my mind is that he had the final yes/no decision.

I'm not a Democrat. Nor am I a Republican.

Since I've been voting, starting when 18 year olds were allowed to vote in 1968, my guess is that I've voted for a nearly equal number of members of each party. (in the early years, most of them lost -- of which I was very proud)

Sorry, but this isn't a GOP vs. Dems thing with me. I just see too many things in President Bush that I have strongly disliked in other politicians in the past.

Again, this is my opinion. You certainly don't have to agree.

Fair enough - and obviously you're entitled to your opinion.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
And I have to ask this. Knowing it stopped 2 terrorist plots in the 2 years it existed, do you wish it had never existed?

That's a real hard question to answer -- even to myself.

There have been a number of times during the course of our history where difficult decisions have had to be made as to what is more important -- this kind of decision or the Constitution.

I will say this. 20/20 hindsight leads me to believe that this is possibly the tip of some iceberg -- that misuse of power begats broader misuse of power. (see Nixon, Richard M.)

Again, unfortunately, his attitude leads me to mistrust.

Clearly, it's good if terrorist plots are foiled, but if it leads to serious intrusions on our rights and liberties it's a very difficult ballance. I've seen it go unballanced, and it was bad.

[Xylochick216]

I've been against the Patriot Act since it was put into place by both parties. Too much "Big Brother is Watching" for my tastes. There have to be better ways out there to unfoil terrorism plots. I don't know what that better way is, but I think it's scary that people can track me at my local library or on my computer and use it against me when I've done absolutely nothing wrong. This is just an abuse of power, and this information could definitely fall into the wrong hands. Just think, terrorists could hack the system to cover themselves and find out information about people they have an interest in...

[James]

The idea in this country is rapidly becoming:

If you aren't doing anything wrong why would you care if we are monitoring you?

Lets say we launch a new government program to start putting passive visual surveillance in everyone's home, in every room. Its a secret program so you won't know.

The film from the cameras will never be looked at unless your name is flagged as a possible law breaker, or else some action occurs inside the house that satisfies the algorithm that is looking for questionable activities.

In that case the tapes will be reviewd by experts, and if nothing is determined to be in violation of the law, you won't know the tapes were reviewed, and no footage of the tapes will fgo further than the reviewers.

If you are doing nothing wrong, why would you have problem with that kind of monitoring?

Wouldn't the safety of everyone, especially our children, override any basic desire for a privacy that will only actively be violated if people have questions about you?

[DeltAlum]

From MSNBC...

"The US Senate on Friday blocked a final vote on renewal of the Patriot Act as senators reacted harshly to reports that President George W. Bush had authorised secret domestic surveillance of US citizens by US foreign intelligence agencies."

Here's more:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/

From the above link:

"But some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.

NBC report on Pentagon database:

Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States after the report by NBC News said the database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security threat to Pentagon property or personnel."

DA comment -- this sounds very much like what caused the furror after it was discovered that the FBI was infiltrating such rabid anti-war groups as the Boy Scouts of America years ago. The underlining is mine.

This may be part of that iceberg I was talking about a few posts above.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
From MSNBC...

"The US Senate on Friday blocked a final vote on renewal of the Patriot Act as senators reacted harshly to reports that President George W. Bush had authorised secret domestic surveillance of US citizens by US foreign intelligence agencies."

Here's more:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/

From the above link:

"But some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.

NBC report on Pentagon database
Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States after the report by NBC News said the database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security threat to Pentagon property or personnel."

DA comment -- this sounds very much like what caused the furror after it was discovered that the FBI was infiltrating such rabid anti-war groups as the Boy Scouts of America years ago. The underlining is mine.

The database has nothing to do with the Times story. That was a separate (very disturbing) problem.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Man, you're fast. I wasn't even finished editing the post before you responded.

You are correct, the post lists that part as being from an NBC report.

So, my thoughts haven't really changed.

This is Deja Vu all over again for me as they say.

The administrations appears to me to be circling the wagons.

Who knows how much the leaders of the Senate were really told post-9/11 about this?

In my opinion, this is an abuse of power by an administration that is masterful at that abuse and rationalization thereof.

If you don't think so, then we simply disagree.