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

[DeltAlum]

There is concern now that some CNN folks, including Christiane Amanpour, have had their conversations listened to. (Important to point out that this is speculation at this point)

The NSA says no.

If history really does repeat itself (Vietnam/Watergate/Civil Rights eras), someday we will find out the real answer is yes.

[hoosier]

Ole AC sums this up pretty good:

"The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al-Qaida is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia."

[RACooper]

Ah yes the wonderful '1984' sentiment of: "If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear".

So, what proof of this citizen's involvement with a threat to US security is there? Does the NSA have to submit to evidence or proof in advance, or after the fact? Or does this fall under the: "We can't tell you for reasons of national security"?

What would be my main concern (if I was a US citizen) is that such a broad definition of "national threat" is used - and there doesn't seem to be any credible oversight of the security monitoring (wire taps, emails and such). The thing is even in the past, ie. WWII, there had to be judical oversight of the spying or monitoring of US citizens - either by a civilian judge or a military judge... the US was in a full blown world-wide war, and yet they were still able to follow due process... why not now?

Now please keep in mind that I'm from a country where half of what has allegedly been done is perfectly legal, and has been happening ever single day for the last 70 years... the monitoring of any international phone or electronic communications entering Canada - even then all cases have to be undergo judical review. However the spying on a citizen without full authorization, and review, by judicial authourities is strictly prohibitted.


Final thought - wasn't is BuSh himself that said that they are fighting the "enemies of freedom", people who hate the US for it's high values and rights? If so why sacrifice these freedoms and rights - doesn't that accomplish exactly what Bush said he is fighting against?

[hoosier]

Pretty simply:

1 - we're at war (most of today's Dem critics voted to go to war)

2 - Bush is the commander in chief, directing the war

3 - we've already lost 3,000 civilians on 9/11

4 - if somebody in the US is communicating with the leaders of the 9/11 attackers, I'm glad Bush is listening in and taking action to keep us safe.
If he needs more listeners, and asks for volunteers, he wouldn't be disappointed.

5 - every war brings some limits on rights, as a lot of Japanese-heritage people in WWII learned during their days in internment camps out in the desert.

6 - the FISA court, supposedly set up to monitor intelligence efforts, has jumped the track. Prior to 9/11 for 20 years, the FISA court did not modify or reject a single warrant request. In 2003/04, the court did "substantive modifications" to 173 requests for warrants, and rejected six outright. Now FISA court judges are granting anonymous interviews to the NYTimes and WashPost involving themselves in upcoming events/requests/briefings.

7 - as long as Bush is president, I'm confident we will not sit around waiting for the next terrorist attack.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by hoosier
Pretty simply:

1 - we're at war (most of today's Dem critics voted to go to war)

The US has been at war in the past, and yet at least made an effort to respect the rule of law and judical procedures then... why not now?

2 - Bush is the commander in chief, directing the war

Gee I never knew that that infalibility was a trait confered upon the Commander in Chief during his swearing in Just because he's Commander in Chief doesn't mean that he is infalible or above the law....

3 - we've already lost 3,000 civilians on 9/11

Yes, yes, I realise that... and I do realise invoking 9/11 is a favourite Administration debate tactic; but what does that have to do with circumventing US laws? Others have died in the past, what is so very different this time that rights and freedoms are subverted?

4 - if somebody in the US is communicating with the leaders of the 9/11 attackers, I'm glad Bush is listening in and taking action to keep us safe.
If he needs more listeners, and asks for volunteers, he wouldn't be disappointed.

I think you missed the point - I have no problem with the monitoring of people that threaten a nation's security... but I do have a problem when oversight is taken out of the hands of judical or legal authorities - you know checks & balances.

5 - every war brings some limits on rights, as a lot of Japanese-heritage people in WWII learned during their days in internment camps out in the desert.

Yes, yes... and the vandalization and burning of German owned establishments in WWII and the Great War - and yet Germans weren't sent to internment camps enmass were they?

I have serious doubts about how much was motivated by security concerns and how much was motivate by racism...

6 - the FISA court, supposedly set up to monitor intelligence efforts, has jumped the track. Prior to 9/11 for 20 years, the FISA court did not modify or reject a single warrant request. In 2003/04, the court did "substantive modifications" to 173 requests for warrants, and rejected six outright. Now FISA court judges are granting anonymous interviews to the NYTimes and WashPost involving themselves in upcoming events/requests/briefings.

So the fact that the judical oversight system rejected or modified warrants is grounds for not going along with it any more? I gotta say that is a distrubing vien of logic you're following... perhaps there were very sound legal reasons why FISA rejected/modified warrant requests. The fact that these things did happen should not be the reason to circumvent judical proceedures or oversight - in fact I'd wonder why FISA was concerned about the rejected/modified warrants... and moreso about the ones not brought before them.

7 - as long as Bush is president, I'm confident we will not sit around waiting for the next terrorist attack.

Fair enough... but there are legal ways to go about it without sacrificing rights and freedoms on the altar of "security"

[KillarneyRose]

Originally posted by RACooper
Ah yes the wonderful '1984' sentiment of: "If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear".

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on this subject, even though I'm not an Orwell fan Could be I'm a good little Prole, or maybe I just don't talk about anything much steamier than when the winter yoga sessions are starting!

[Optimist Prime]

Bush=Hitler.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Optimist Prime
Bush=Hitler.

Seriously. Shut up. Please just shut up.

-Rudey

[hoosier]

Originally posted by RACooper


The US has been at war in the past, and yet at least made an effort to respect the rule of law and judical procedures then... why not now?

[/b]

Gee I never knew that that infalibility was a trait confered upon the Commander in Chief during his swearing in Just because he's Commander in Chief doesn't mean that he is infalible or above the law....

[/b]

Yes, yes, I realise that... and I do realise invoking 9/11 is a favourite Administration debate tactic; but what does that have to do with circumventing US laws? Others have died in the past, what is so very different this time that rights and freedoms are subverted?

[/b]

I think you missed the point - I have no problem with the monitoring of people that threaten a nation's security... but I do have a problem when oversight is taken out of the hands of judical or legal authorities - you know checks & balances.

[/b]

Yes, yes... and the vandalization and burning of German owned establishments in WWII and the Great War - and yet Germans weren't sent to internment camps enmass were they?

I have serious doubts about how much was motivated by security concerns and how much was motivate by racism...

[/b]

So the fact that the judical oversight system rejected or modified warrants is grounds for not going along with it any more? I gotta say that is a distrubing vien of logic you're following... perhaps there were very sound legal reasons why FISA rejected/modified warrant requests. The fact that these things did happen should not be the reason to circumvent judical proceedures or oversight - in fact I'd wonder why FISA was concerned about the rejected/modified warrants... and moreso about the ones not brought before them.



Fair enough... but there are legal ways to go about it without sacrificing rights and freedoms on the altar of "security" [/B]

You make some interesting points.

Most of the politicians and commentators making similar points are not concerned with American security, though. They are simply interested in making Bush look bad, in electing Democrats, and in getting more liberal justices appointed.

Their motives, and previous statements, make their "privacy and security concerns" seem frivolous.

P.S.: Bush = great American leader

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
Most of the politicians and commentators making similar points are not concerned with American security, though. They are simply interested in making Bush look bad, in electing Democrats, and in getting more liberal justices appointed.

Many, myself included, may remember the illegal wiretaping of domestic groups during previous administrations and be as outraged now as we were then.

Personally, I think that President Bush (the present one) will be viewed as more of a divider than a leader. History will decide that, though. I can't recall many times when politics has divided the country as badly as it is now.

[positive14]

The perception of opposition to the recent wire tapping issue has been over-stated.

The recent Democratic criticism of President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps might lead one to conclude that the opposition party is genuinely concerned with protecting individual rights and, concurrently, restraining executive power. But when it comes to wiretaps, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been equal partners in expanding the scope of federal power; the present Democratic objection is limited to the absence of pro forma judicial oversight.

This past October, the Senate unanimously passed a bill that would vastly expand the ability of the Justice Department to spy on American businesses via wiretaps. Not a single senator rose to speak against this bill. Even the most rabid Democratic critic of the White House's warrantless wiretapping, Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold, embraced an unprecedented expansion of unsupervised, albeit warrant-enabled, wiretaps.

The actual official opposition to this brand of domestic spying is almost non-existant.

[Honeykiss1974]

Google rebuffs feds over access to search data
Bush administration wants details of what users look for
Associated Press
Updated: 8:24 p.m. ET Jan. 19, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO - Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration’s demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet’s leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.

Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.

The government wants a list all requests entered into Google’s search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10925344/?GT1=7538

[Rudey]

This is for something different. It's about pornography. The Supreme Court already struck this down. I have no idea what the heck they are pursuing it for. The Supreme fricking Court already said no so how can they?? I bet it's because Bush just wants to see if Cheney is looking at animal porn or something strange like that. I'm happy that google is saying no to them.

-Rudey

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
Google rebuffs feds over access to search data
Bush administration wants details of what users look for
Associated Press
Updated: 8:24 p.m. ET Jan. 19, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO - Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration’s demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet’s leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.

Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.

The government wants a list all requests entered into Google’s search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10925344/?GT1=7538

[Tom Earp]

GOOD FOR GOOGLE.COM!

It is starting to get just a little to damn scarry with this along with a so called minor tapping directive.

Once it starts My friends, just where will it stop?

Hell, there are listening stations all over the World that have a Main Frame looking for Key words that will allow the US Govt. to listen to and watch phone calls and cyber messaging.

[hoosier]

Kerry waffles again:

Reuters reports:

Kerry, who endorsed former Vice President Al Gore's call for an independent investigation of the Bush program, said on ABC's "This Week" that some Republicans like Bush adviser Karl Rove are trying to equate Democratic opposition to warrantless spying as weakness.

"What he's (Rove) trying to pretend is somehow Democrats don't want to eavesdrop appropriately to protect the country. That's a lie," Kerry said. "We're prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer."

So he's for spying! Er, hang on a second! Here's the Washington Times:

Kerry yesterday called the National Security Agency's program to eavesdrop on terror suspects illegal, but he said he will continue to support its funding.


-- OJ