| Author |
Message |
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
 Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:00 am Bush Lets Government Spy on Callers Without Warrants |
|
| Quote: | Bush Lets Government Spy on Callers Without Warrants
By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU, The New York Times
WASHINGTON (Dec. 16) - 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.
Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.
The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.
"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."
Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.
According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. 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.
The Bush administration views the operation as necessary so that the agency can move quickly to monitor communications that may disclose threats to the United States, the officials said. 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.
The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.
Dealing With a New Threat
While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials.
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. But they said most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime, including an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden.
The eavesdropping program grew out of concerns after the Sept. 11 attacks that the nation's intelligence agencies were not poised to deal effectively with the new threat of Al Qaeda and that they were handcuffed by legal and bureaucratic restrictions better suited to peacetime than war, according to officials. In response, President Bush significantly eased limits on American intelligence and law enforcement agencies and the military.
But some of the administration's antiterrorism initiatives have provoked an outcry from members of Congress, watchdog groups, immigrants and others who argue that the measures erode protections for civil liberties and intrude on Americans' privacy.
Opponents have challenged provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the focus of contentious debate on Capitol Hill this week, that expand domestic surveillance by giving the Federal Bureau of Investigation more power to collect information like library lending lists or Internet use. Military and F.B.I. officials have drawn criticism for monitoring what were largely peaceful antiwar protests. The Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security were forced to retreat on plans to use public and private databases to hunt for possible terrorists. And last year, the Supreme Court rejected the administration's claim that those labeled "enemy combatants" were not entitled to judicial review of their open-ended detention.
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.
The National Security Agency, which is based at Fort Meade, Md., is the nation's largest and most secretive intelligence agency, so intent on remaining out of public view that it has long been nicknamed "No Such Agency." It breaks codes and maintains listening posts around the world to eavesdrop on foreign governments, diplomats and trade negotiators as well as drug lords and terrorists. But the agency ordinarily operates under tight restrictions on any spying on Americans, even if they are overseas, or disseminating information about them.
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.
Traditionally, the F.B.I., not the N.S.A., seeks such warrants and conducts most domestic eavesdropping. Until the new program began, the N.S.A. typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions in Washington, New York and other cities, and obtained court orders to do so.
Since 2002, the agency has been conducting some warrantless eavesdropping on people in the United States who are linked, even if indirectly, to suspected terrorists through the chain of phone numbers and e-mail addresses, according to several officials who know of the operation. Under the special program, the agency monitors their international communications, the officials said. The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan.
Warrants are still required for eavesdropping on entirely domestic-to-domestic communications, those officials say, meaning that calls from that New Yorker to someone in California could not be monitored without first going to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court.
A White House Briefing
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.
Later briefings were held for members of Congress as they assumed leadership roles on the intelligence committees, officials familiar with the program said. After a 2003 briefing, Senator Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who became vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that year, wrote a letter to Mr. Cheney expressing concerns about the program, officials knowledgeable about the letter said. It could not be determined if he received a reply. Mr. Rockefeller declined to comment. Aside from the Congressional leaders, only a small group of people, including several cabinet members and officials at the N.S.A., the C.I.A. and the Justice Department, know of the program.
Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the program's legality. But nothing came of his inquiry. "People just looked the other way because they didn't want to know what was going on," he said.
A senior government official recalled that he was taken aback when he first learned of the operation. "My first reaction was, 'We're doing what?' " he said. While he said he eventually felt that adequate safeguards were put in place, he added that questions about the program's legitimacy were understandable.
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.
The standard of proof required to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is generally considered lower than that required for a criminal warrant - intelligence officials only have to show probable cause that someone may be "an agent of a foreign power," which includes international terrorist groups - and the secret court has turned down only a small number of requests over the years. In 2004, according to the Justice Department, 1,754 warrants were approved. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can grant emergency approval for wiretaps within hours, officials say.
Administration officials counter that they sometimes need to move more urgently, the officials said. Those involved in the program also said that the N.S.A.'s eavesdroppers might need to start monitoring large batches of numbers all at once, and that it would be impractical to seek permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court first, according to the officials.
The N.S.A. domestic spying operation has stirred such controversy among some national security officials in part because of the agency's cautious culture and longstanding rules.
Widespread abuses - including eavesdropping on Vietnam War protesters and civil rights activists - by American intelligence agencies became public in the 1970's and led to passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which imposed strict limits on intelligence gathering on American soil. Among other things, the law required search warrants, approved by the secret F.I.S.A. court, for wiretaps in national security cases. The agency, deeply scarred by the scandals, adopted additional rules that all but ended domestic spying on its part.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, though, the United States intelligence community was criticized for being too risk-averse. The National Security Agency was even cited by the independent 9/11 Commission for adhering to self-imposed rules that were stricter than those set by federal law.
Concerns and Revisions
Several senior government officials say that when the special operation began, there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A. The agency can choose its eavesdropping targets and does not have to seek approval from Justice Department or other Bush administration officials. Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation, a former senior Bush administration official said. Before the 2004 election, the official said, some N.S.A. personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president.
In mid-2004, concerns about the program expressed by national security officials, government lawyers and a judge prompted the Bush administration to suspend elements of the program and revamp it.
For the first time, the Justice Department audited the N.S.A. program, several officials said. And to provide more guidance, the Justice Department and the agency expanded and refined a checklist to follow in deciding whether probable cause existed to start monitoring someone's communications, several officials said.
A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, helped spur the suspension, officials said. The judge questioned whether information obtained under the N.S.A. program was being improperly used as the basis for F.I.S.A. wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, according to senior government officials. While not knowing all the details of the exchange, several government lawyers said there appeared to be concerns that the Justice Department, by trying to shield the existence of the N.S.A. program, was in danger of misleading the court about the origins of the information cited to justify the warrants.
One official familiar with the episode said the judge insisted to Justice Department lawyers at one point that any material gathered under the special N.S.A. program not be used in seeking wiretap warrants from her court. Judge Kollar-Kotelly did not return calls for comment.
A related issue arose in a case in which the F.B.I. was monitoring the communications of a terrorist suspect under a F.I.S.A.-approved warrant, even though the National Security Agency was already conducting warrantless eavesdropping.
According to officials, F.B.I. surveillance of Mr. Faris, the Brooklyn Bridge plotter, was dropped for a short time because of technical problems. At the time, senior Justice Department officials worried what would happen if the N.S.A. picked up information that needed to be presented in court. The government would then either have to disclose the N.S.A. program or mislead a criminal court about how it had gotten the information.
Several national security officials say the powers granted the N.S.A. by President Bush go far beyond the expanded counterterrorism powers granted by Congress under the USA Patriot Act, which is up for renewal. The House on Wednesday approved a plan to reauthorize crucial parts of the law. But final passage has been delayed under the threat of a Senate filibuster because of concerns from both parties over possible intrusions on Americans' civil liberties and privacy.
Under the act, law enforcement and intelligence officials are still required to seek a F.I.S.A. warrant every time they want to eavesdrop within the United States. A recent agreement reached by Republican leaders and the Bush administration would modify the standard for F.B.I. wiretap warrants, requiring, for instance, a description of a specific target. Critics say the bar would remain too low to prevent abuses.
Bush administration officials argue that the civil liberties concerns are unfounded, and they say pointedly that the Patriot Act has not freed the N.S.A. to target Americans. "Nothing could be further from the truth," wrote John Yoo, a former official in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and his co-author in a Wall Street Journal opinion article in December 2003. Mr. Yoo worked on a classified legal opinion on the N.S.A.'s domestic eavesdropping program.
At an April hearing on the Patriot Act renewal, Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, asked Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the F.B.I., "Can the National Security Agency, the great electronic snooper, spy on the American people?"
"Generally," Mr. Mueller said, "I would say generally, they are not allowed to spy or to gather information on American citizens."
President Bush did not ask Congress to include provisions for the N.S.A. domestic surveillance program as part of the Patriot Act and has not sought any other laws to authorize the operation. Bush administration lawyers argued that such new laws were unnecessary, because they believed that the Congressional resolution on the campaign against terrorism provided ample authorization, officials said.
The Legal Line Shifts
Seeking Congressional approval was also viewed as politically risky because the proposal would be certain to face intense opposition on civil liberties grounds. The administration also feared that by publicly disclosing the existence of the operation, its usefulness in tracking terrorists would end, officials said.
The legal opinions that support the N.S.A. operation remain classified, but they appear to have followed private discussions among senior administration lawyers and other officials about the need to pursue aggressive strategies that once may have been seen as crossing a legal line, according to senior officials who participated in the discussions.
For example, just days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon, Mr. Yoo, the Justice Department lawyer, wrote an internal memorandum that argued that the government might use "electronic surveillance techniques and equipment that are more powerful and sophisticated than those available to law enforcement agencies in order to intercept telephonic communications and observe the movement of persons but without obtaining warrants for such uses."
Mr. Yoo noted that while such actions could raise constitutional issues, in the face of devastating terrorist attacks "the government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties."
The next year, Justice Department lawyers disclosed their thinking on the issue of warrantless wiretaps in national security cases in a little-noticed brief in an unrelated court case. In that 2002 brief, the government said that "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority."
Administration officials were also encouraged by a November 2002 appeals court decision in an unrelated matter. The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which sided with the administration in dismantling a bureaucratic "wall" limiting cooperation between prosecutors and intelligence officers, cited "the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."
But the same court suggested that national security interests should not be grounds "to jettison the Fourth Amendment requirements" protecting the rights of Americans against undue searches. The dividing line, the court acknowledged, "is a very difficult one to administer."
Barclay Walsh contributed research for this article.
12-16-05 05:09 EST
Copyright � 2005 The New York Times Company. |
Apparently warrants don't mean anything these days. The president is in violation of the constitution and trampling the civil rights of the thousands that have been illegally spied on. If they want to spy on people, they should get a warrant! Only a couple out of thousands of people have been arrested.. are they trying to say that it couldn't have been done without a warrant? Perhaps they should make the list of spyees more narrow so as not to violate people's rights.  Then of course, they try to hush this article. Awesome. Bush is a criminal. What made people vote for him again? Can't they see he's a law-breaking, simple minded, ill intentioned, fool? I'm outraged that he just pushed the constitution aside to serve his administration's purposes, then kept it quiet. Do you think you're hearing the entire story regarding other matters? I doubt it. 
[Edited for quotes - IIM]
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:48 pm |
|
http://www.startrekvoyager.com/viewtopic.php?t=10573
Please, read the rules. You'll find that ANY article you post must be put in quotes. Thanks.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:52 pm |
|
First, don't you read the the title? Bias is in it from the start. Anyways, let's keep this in perspective.
1. It was shortly after 9/11 when this policy was set forth.
2. The Legislative and Judicial branches knew about what was going on (the Senate and House Intelligence Committees were briefed, as was FISA, a judicial branch organization), so it's not like they were out of the loop. Sure, maybe a majority of them didn't know about it, but some did.
3. The eavesdroppings were on suspected terorists, and virtually ALL of them were out-of-state (country) communications between al Quada operatives abroad and suspected al Quada operatives in the United States. It's not like they chose any regular person and started eavesdropping, or most of them were in the US only. No. It was conversations with others OUTSIDE of America, usually originating from outside America.
4. How do we know that the reason for this wasn't because of imminense--that we couldn't wait so long to get a warrent? He very well could have gotten a warant. If that's the case, it's not a scandal; it's an expedient action. That would seem logical to me, so I'm not going to rush to judgment. We don't know why the President did this, and to rush to judgment and say that he's a horrible man or whatever you said, oberon, such as " law-breaking, simple minded, ill intentioned, fool" without knowing all the facts is wrong, from where I stand, especially during wartime. I mean--accusing the President of being a criminal? That's WAAAAY to far, especially without knowing anything.
5. If the Administration was trying to hide something, why would it have gone to the FISA Court? I mean, what "purposes" do you think his administration was trying to "serve?" I see one purpose. National security.
My feeling, judging from this man's history and his demeanor in interviews, his honesty, his integrity, and all those good qualities that he has, is that he really thought that what he was doing was good and necessary for the American people, particularly at such a time, not long after 9/11. Now, whether or not it was, in fact, the right thing to do is another story.
Now, don't think that I'm supporting this. I need more information before I get so angry at the President of the United States when we're at war--a war like we've never fought before--or accuse him of wrongdoing (and I don't mean being wrong and having poor policies, i.e. Illegal Immigration).
If it is so, would it make me distrust the President? Maybe I'll have a little bit more skepticism or something, but distrust? No. He's still a good, kind, resolute, steadfast man and leader whom I greatly admire and support. And he didn't break any statute that I know of.
Now, taking the definite opposite side of you, I quote David Rivkin, who worked in the Reagan and first Bush administrations:
"...for decades and years and years it has not been altered by the statute--it's part of the President's plenary(sp?) power. Events that occur overseas--that have primarily a foreign connection, that relate to foreign intelligence, foreign policy, defense policy--we absolutely did not need to get any warrant. [The] National Security Agency is going to listen, and God willing they'll do a good job to wart [unsure of that word] terrorists in Iraq talking to terrorists in Afgahnistan? [That line I couldn't really get.] Or some terrorist talking to somebody in the United States. ... Let me just point out that this...has been done before. This is typical NY Times spin--taking an old story and making something out of it."
So aparrently the President had the power to do so already. He makes a good argument. Whether or not I agree with it I have yet to decide. I want to hear both sides, and hear all the facts before I make a judgment.
But here's something else that Rivkin said tonight that I thought was a very good, logical point.
"Let me just mention one policy implication. If it becomes known that all you need to do to be saved from electronic survailence is an American phone number, you're gonna have terrorists all over the world buy a clean mobile phone, buy a card with a 1000 minutes, and you can have people in Pakistan or Iran or Iraq talk to each other on American mobile phones with American area codes and will be essentially free from survailance. That's absured. That's not what the law calls for."
All they have is a judge on the Fisa Court saying that "we don't know if that information you got during this wiretap can be applied to a domestic case." In other words, this is a judge who still believes in that famous law where intelligence gathered abroad may not be used to save American lives at home. Well, I didn't see ANY allegation in that NY Times piece ANY allegation that anybody had broken any existing statute. A law broken? No. Bush a criminal? No.
Rivkin even said that the Clinton administration and other previous administrations of have done survailence without FISA warrents.
And if you're gonna talk about civil liberties being taken away, talk about FDR. You do hate FDR too, right? You think he was a horrible president, too, right?
Oh, and Bush didn't try to hush the article. I don't know where you got that from. The NY Times simply waited because of national security at the time. Logical. Entirely. Of course.
Read my Patriot Act response for a response to part of what you have there, which pertains more to the Patriot Act.
I close by quoting an interesting, rather logical quote of Mr. Rivkin again:
"The broader proposition...is this: balancing security and liberty is a tough task in the war on terror. But this is not even close. The real problem is the NY Times and other critics take an absolutely standard procedure, cast it as a serious problem, have hearings, have information leak out, and cause real damage to national security."
EDIT: I'm very much starting to lean towards the pro-Bush side on this. Actually, I'm pretty sure that I am, after watching several debates on this, and hearing a variety of opinions and ideas. More on this in another post.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:25 pm |
|
If this is confirmed, I will be veeeery unhappy. I don't trust the government that much. I do not like the idea that they have the capability to listen in on whomever they may so desire for no reason at all. The terrorists attack, and we lose our liberties? Who wins? I certainly don't feel like it is me. But like I said, I will wait until more information comes out to make a big deal out of this.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:05 am |
|
Thats repulsive. Hell, even other Republicans are saying this is repulsive. You know, ever since the Patriot act, we have no more civil liberties.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:06 am |
|
| Quote: |
Bush Admits Approving Eavesdropping Dozens of Times
Saturday, December 17, 2005
WASHINGTON � President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and he lashed out at those involved in publicly revealing the program.
"This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security," he said in a radio address delivered live from the White House's Roosevelt Room.
"This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States," Bush said.
Angry members of Congress have demanded an explanation of the program, first revealed in Friday's New York Times and whether the monitoring by the National Security Agency violates civil liberties.
Defending the program, Bush said in his address that it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to Al Qaeda or related terrorist organizations.
He said the program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program.
Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities.
The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated.
Appearing angry at times during his eight-minute address, Bush left no doubt that he will continue authorizing the program.
"I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from Al Qaeda and related groups," he said.
� Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:54 pm |
|
It's only happened 36 (approximately) times! It's obviously not a power that's being abused, no to mention that the federal judge who's in charge of such matters has already deemed it legal.
Fact is, one of these wire taps prevented a truck full of explosives from taking down the Brooklyn Bridge. I'd say that 30 people losing privacy for one phone call, is a fair price to pay to save hundreds from dying.
Anyone challenging this: would you rather have seen those people die?
Ach, the New York Times extreme-left doesn't care anyways, they're more interested in political power than SAVING REAL LIVES. Why else do they WANT us to lose in Iraq. They WANT to empower terrorists. There's really no other explanation.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:00 pm |
|
LightningBoy, that was disgusting.
| Quote: | | Ach, the New York Times extreme-left doesn't care anyways, they're more interested in political power than SAVING REAL LIVES. Why else do they WANT us to lose in Iraq. They WANT to empower terrorists. There's really no other explanation. |
Maybe people don't want us in Iraq because the don't have WMDs, they did have WMDs, and there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. If we're going to go after terrorists, we should be going after the real threat. Iraq is a threat to itself, and obviously if theres still as much of an opposition as they say there is, removing its leader has done nothing. As for empowering terrorists, I'm sure they do. Yes, everyone wants to empower the people who killed many of their friends and fellow Americans, power to the terrorists.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:04 pm |
|
Explain it, why does the Times continuously undermine U.S. troops and the government. They've given away the location of secret bases, placed targets on allies, and trashed the mission, making us look weak.
Their irresponsible reporting cannot be explained as anything less that WANTING the US to lose, WANTING the president to look bad, and not caring what lives are cost to get that goal.
Disgusting, look at the times. So nice of you to throw bombs at me.
Iraq is where Al-Qaeda is, that is where the highest functional terrorist cells in the world are, to deny that is, simply, stupid. Want to attack the threat? It's the terrorists in Iraq.
Last edited by LightningBoy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:08 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:05 pm |
|
Let's keep things calm please 
While I dont agree with what they did, I guess if it saved lives,... *shrugs*
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:14 pm |
|
1. Every news paper has bashed and attempted to make EVERY president look bad, thats what sells, so don't try to play it off like they're picking on Bush.
2. The only way the could have gotten the locations of said secret bases, is if someone inside the government told a reporter where they were. So there goes that theory, so in escence, the government gave away the locations. And many a reporter has gone to jail because of this, so stop whining about it.
3. Al-Qaeda is not just in Iraq, Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Saudia Arabia too, why aren't we invading them? Oh, thats right, we need the oil from Saudia Arabia.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:26 pm |
|
...and the Times shouldn't be reporting it. FACT IS, you DO NOT undermine a war when there are still men in harms way; that's reckless, and that's what they like to do. Anything they can do to make the U.S. look bad, they'll do; they don't care how many lives they destroy.
The Saudi government has been very ruthless and vigiland, not to mention successful, about stopping terrorist cells in their country. U.S. Troops in Afghanistan simply have nothing left to do. My brother in law is currently in Afghanistan, and says there's nothing left; we finished the job there. No, Iraq is not the ONLY threat, but it is the PRIMARY threat. That is where Al Qaeda IS, and that is where we are keeping them pinned down.
Funny you leftists love to bring up Saudi Arabia, even though (while they have major civil rights problems) they've been EXTREMELY pro-active against terrorism. Yeah, many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, but that's just their origin, they'd lived in Afghanistan for a number of years. Saudi Araiba is a crooked country, but when you want to talk Terrorism, they've got things right.
Remind me, how many terrorist attacks have there been on U.S. soil since 9/11?
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:29 pm |
|
Remind me how many US soldier died in Iraq looking for WMDs that were never there?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:41 pm |
|
I don't think we should turn this into a debate over Iraq (which, btw, more and more Americans are once again supporting). I'm no mod, but I don't want the topic locked. It's a good one. I have the following crushing argument, so it's clearly good  (Oh, and btw. 2000 soldiers died. That's the least amount in any long-standing war in American history, and a thousand less than 9/11 )
I have a question for you who are opposed to this (I am now in support of it, basically):
Setting up the scene, the only times this has been used have been predominantly for calls made out-of-the-country. AND it takes 2 to 3 months, according to Victoria Toengsing, former Secretary of State and one who dealt with the following, to get a warrant from whatever international court their supposed to get permission from.
So, answer me this: Osama bin Laden calls the United States, talking with someone on an American phone in the US. Are we supposed to hang up on them? Are we supposed to WAIT, when an attack could occur? We're supposed to wait two to three months, when bin Laden's plan comes into motion! That's something I would rather not do. I would rather have the NSA monitor the call, rather than having to wait, than have an attack on US soil. Now, it's not likely, of course, that bin Laden would place a call to the US, but you get my point.
Waiting isn't the answer. If we knowledge that someone like bin Laden is placing a call to someone in the US, we should be able to stop them and listen in. THAT'S why this was allowed--and it, apparently, thrwarted several potential incidents in the past. So, what does this say to the terrorists? That we can't monitor their calls, if they're on US phones. Okay, so then: a terrorist gets an American cell phone with 1000 minutes and gives it to a terrorist in another country. They can talk to each other without being monitored, and plot and plot and plot, for 3 months--the time it takes to get a warrent. No, I'd rather have the call monitored than another terrorist attack occurred.
Besides, this isn't anything new. It's typical NY Times spin, trying to make a big deal out of an old story--out of nothing.
So, yeah. I'm rather glad Bush did this. It was the right thing to do.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:44 pm |
|
It's a smaller number than the number of civilians killed by terrorists in attacks against the U.S., lets not forget the fact that that sacrafice has prevented the number of civilians killed from increasing. I, for one, respect the soldiers and their sacrafice, not mock it and degrade the mission they were willing to die for. But then again, just keep undermining the war. Everyone else does it...
Also, i've said this about 9billion times, and the left can't get it thru their heads; WMD WAS NOT THE MAIN REASON FOR GOING INTO IRAQ. This is just more evidence of the left's selective memory on Iraq. You deny the illegal weapons we DID FIND anyways, so it doesn't really matter though. We could find a freakin' stockpile of Smallpox and Anthrax, and you'd likely ignore it, it wouldn't fit your political agenda.
We went into Iraq to take on terrorists, if you don't believe that, you're political motivation is getting in the way of your deductive reasoning; wise up. We've done an Excellent job keeping the terrorists tied down in the middle east, it's hard to refute the sucess of this mission. Iraq, to this point, has been, probably the second most successful mission in U.S. history (behind Granada).
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:47 pm |
|
Yeah, I can see that, but we did the same thing. Our government knew about 9/11 before it happened, and did nothing, so whats to say they're going to do anything about it now.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:51 pm |
|
I agree with LB 100% on Iraq--but please. I warn everyone about going into a debate on Iraq in this topic...seriously. We have a topic about it, and I would rather not see the mods lock this one...We're going into dangerous waters, talking about this
But again, I ask the question to those opposed to the topic at hand:
I have a question for you who are opposed to this (I am now in support of it, basically):
Osama bin Laden calls the United States, talking with someone on an American phone in the US. Are we supposed to hang up on them? Are we supposed to WAIT, when an attack could occur? We're supposed to wait two to three months, when bin Laden's plan comes into motion! That's something I would rather not do. I would rather have the NSA monitor the call, rather than having to wait, than have an attack on US soil. And if you see monitoring an INTERNATIONAL CALL for DEFENSE as a violation of civil liberties--particularly when the call is originating from out-of-state (country)--then I think it's worth it, in order to prevent another 9/11.
I again quote David Rivkin, who worked in the Reagan and first Bush administrations:
"Events that occur overseas--that have primarily a foreign connection, that relate to foreign intelligence, foreign policy, defense policy--we absolutely did not need to get any warrant. [The] National Security Agency is going to listen, and God willing they'll do a good job to wart [unsure of that word] terrorists in Iraq talking to terrorists in Afgahnistan? [That line I couldn't really get.] Or some terrorist talking to somebody in the United States. ... Let me just point out that this...has been done before."
Good point.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:52 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | Yeah, I can see that, but we did the same thing. Our government knew about 9/11 before it happened, and did nothing, so whats to say they're going to do anything about it now. |
Evidence, please.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:52 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | Yeah, I can see that, but we did the same thing. Our government knew about 9/11 before it happened, and did nothing, so whats to say they're going to do anything about it now. |
Our government DID NOT know specifically about 9/11 before it happened. There were intellegence failures that can be blamed on EVERY president as far back as Jimmy Carter, but, if you read the 9/11 report, there was no specific threat.
This'll be my last Iraq post in here. Sorry for getting off topic.
Last edited by LightningBoy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:54 pm |
|
Sorry, I don't feel like typing out the whole report of the 9/11 commission, I mean its 1500 pages long, and I have a life.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:59 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | Sorry, I don't feel like typing out the whole report of the 9/11 commission, I mean its 1500 pages long, and I have a life. |
Exactly. You can't answer. Because they didn't know. There were warnings, but nothing clear.
And that's the point here. We want to know about another 9/11 before it happens, so that we may stop it. This and the Patriot Act are good, necessary tools in preventing another attack--and they have worked!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:09 pm |
|
A wise man once said something along the lines of "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Are you willing to sacrifice your freedom, what makes you American for temporary safety from the evils of this world? If you are good for you, I'm not. Living in a nation who's government can do whatever the hell they want to you and your family is no different than living in a dictatorship.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:14 pm |
|
Wasn't that James Madison?
Oh, I don't think it's a violation of rights or anything, but yes, temporarily I would be willing to allow tapping of phones without warrents for possible terrorist threats.
Doing whatever they want to you and your family? No, that's not what they're doing. They're just using pre-existing statutes to help secure the American people. It's not like they're doing it to anyone who they don't suspect poses a threat, or on any regular conversation
But yes, I'd be willing to relinguish one right of a few people in order to save TOUSANDS to MILLIONS, though.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:19 pm |
|
No, it was Ben Franklin
And they do tap every single phone conversation, they just don't listen to the whole thing, they look for key phrases. And its not that they're doing whatever they want to you and your family thats what they can do. Thats the point. Under the patriot act, they can search your home without your knowledge and with out you being home, and not have to tell you for months after the fact.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:30 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | No, it was Ben Franklin
And they do tap every single phone conversation, they just don't listen to the whole thing, they look for key phrases. And its not that they're doing whatever they want to you and your family thats what they can do. Thats the point. Under the patriot act, they can search your home without your knowledge and with out you being home, and not have to tell you for months after the fact. |
Maybe so, but has it ever been abused? Give me one instance in which it has EVER been abused, or used wrongfully. It never has been. Tha'ts the point.
And no, they don't eavesdrop on every single phone conversation. It's only those that pertain to their purposes--that is, international phone calls, and their monitoring calls from out of the country, mostly. Just because they have an American phone doesn't mean that they shouldn't be tapped.
I again quote myself, because you still haven't answered my question:
| Quote: | I have a question for you who are opposed to this (I am now in support of it, basically):
Setting up the scene, the only times this has been used have been predominantly for calls made out-of-the-country. AND it takes 2 to 3 months, according to Victoria Toengsing, former Secretary of State and one who dealt with the following, to get a warrant from whatever international court their supposed to get permission from.
So, answer me this: Osama bin Laden calls the United States, talking with someone on an American phone in the US. Are we supposed to hang up on them? Are we supposed to WAIT, when an attack could occur? We're supposed to wait two to three months, when bin Laden's plan comes into motion! That's something I would rather not do. I would rather have the NSA monitor the call, rather than having to wait, than have an attack on US soil. Now, it's not likely, of course, that bin Laden would place a call to the US, but you get my point.
Waiting isn't the answer. If we knowledge that someone like bin Laden is placing a call to someone in the US, we should be able to stop them and listen in. THAT'S why this was allowed--and it, apparently, thrwarted several potential incidents in the past. So, what does this say to the terrorists? That we can't monitor their calls, if they're on US phones. Okay, so then: a terrorist gets an American cell phone with 1000 minutes and gives it to a terrorist in another country. They can talk to each other without being monitored, and plot and plot and plot, for 3 months--the time it takes to get a warrent. No, I'd rather have the call monitored than another terrorist attack occurred. |
For that reason I think this is fine to have.[/code]
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
