In regard to this so-called domestic spying...Follow

Echelon (unlike other similar attempts to share intelligence resources) has survived for ages and undergone huge changes over the years (every UK & US Administration change has attempted to reorganize or adapt it with varying success).

Do the intelligence services compromise our own rights to privacy?
Of course they do.

Have they prevented terrorist attacks?
Hundreds

Have they targeted individuals and groups for party political reasons?
Yep.

Did they prevent 9/11 - 7/7?
Err. Hmmm.

Will any administration or electorate stop covert operations stretching the boundaries of consitutional rules?
Don't be so fu[i][/i]cking stupid.

So it's emerged that in a time of crisis a Gubberment sanctions black ops and dastardly deeds. Who'da thunk!!

Always has happened, always will. Deal with it.

Intelligence works on suspicion not fact. Just hope you don't become a suspect.

Bah, Bah ;)

Um... Not really true. Have you ever actually *studied* the history of wiretapping and the rulings surrounding it? You're slinging the word "illegal" around, but it's not completely applicable.

I'm not aware of anyone employed by an agency of the government involved in intelligence gathering ever being actually charged with a crime for "illegal" wiretapping. The word you're really looking for is "unlawful".

The vast majority of rullings on the issue of wiretapping aren't about it being illegal, but that any information gained via an "unlawful" wiretap can't be used as evidence against you in court (and by extension any evidence collected as a result of that wiretap as well). It's "unlawful" because you didn't get a warrant (or a proper warrant for the information you gathered) and so it can't be used legally against the person.


I suppose someone might get charged with some kind of crime for performing an unlawful wiretap, but I've simply never heard of this actually happeneing. Since it's generally law enforcement types that run into this, the courts generally consider the fact that their evidence isn't valid to be punishment enough.


Beyond that. Technically, the president of the US *can't* commit a crime while in office either. He can only be impeached, at the discretion of Congress. In this case, while he's got executive power, Congress has legistlative power and must (in theory) ok anything he might do. Um... Which is exactly what happened in this case. While this makes for great rhetoric among the ignorant masses, the fact is that a Congressional Committee had oversite on this spy program. Since it was conducted with congressional approval, while embarassing, it's *not* illegal. If Congress had said that he couldn't do it, and he did anyway *then* he might be subject to censure or impeachment. But that's not the case here...


The executive branch of the government does a lot of things that would be "illegal" for anyone else to do. That's part of the point. The balance is that congress has oversite and approves the programs. Only an incredibly naive person doens't realize this. Or do you really think that SEALs only do rescue operations? No. They illegally enter other countries and kill people. Quite often. What exactly do you *think* a NOC working for the CIA does? Yup. More "illegal" stuff. How do you think black budget items work? Legality in the context of what the executive branch of the government can do is defined not by the laws written down, but by approval of Congress directly. In this case, Congress had direct oversite of this program and presumably approved funding for it. I just find it staggering that we're making such a big deal out of a process that's used continually in our government and has been for quite some time. The Liberals have got to be seriously desperate to pull this one out of their hat...

I suppose someone might get charged with some kind of crime for performing an unlawful wiretap, but I've simply never heard of this actually happeneing.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/sheriff.htm

You're kind of a fuc[/b]king moron, aren't you?

Sorry, don't bother writing 19000 words in response, was rhetorical.

Obviously, but I figured I'd let you know, You know, dumb it down for you. I know how confused you get sometimes.

Also, just a quick reminder. No one gives a fu[b]ck about your oppinions on anything as they're regurgitated party line and hence utterly predictible and meaningless.

Thanks.

Get their cover blown by the administration and then told they were never a NOC to begin with?

Thank you! I'll be here all week!

...yes, I am aware that there are other threads that have discussed this topic. But what I have not seen and what I believe is important that has not been said is that this type of "spying" has been done all through the '90s under a super-secret program named "Echelon." And, yes, for those who are keeping score (Shadowrelm, this is you) this occurred under the Clinton watch
--------------------------------------------------------

actually, since the 70,s

no one is complaining about the spying. every one is complaining about the lack of a check and ballance, oversight basically.

to ensure peoples rights were protected, a super secret panel of federal judges was formed, available to issue warents 24\7 at a moments notice at the request of the government.

origonally, there were 9 judges. Bush increased that number to 11 right after 9-11.

the outcry is comming because Bush personally authorized the NSA to side step this MANDATORY oversight on several ocaisions.

he does not have that authority.

his own party is calling for an investigation, not just the dems.,

Yeah cause when they're caught, Langley and Century immediately issue a press release and invite Fox News and John Stewart round for Dr Pepper and Pringles.

gbaji - You repeatedly affirm my view that the funniest people are stupid ones who think they're smart.

Now go fetch me another glass of Chablis and plump these cushions would you? There's a good chap.

Sheesh. Talk about irrelevant sidetracking.


The fact is that the program was signed off by the White House Counsel and the Attorney General as legal. It was then authorized by Bush. It was reviewed and reauthorized over a dozen times over a 4 year time period, in every case by those parties *and* the congressional intelligence committee which had oversite on the program.


This wasn't some secret plot hatched in a backroom and executed without anyone's knowledge. It was done completely legally and followed all the correct government channels. Aside from actually walking up to the press and handing over the details of the program, what more do you expect? Every single federal agency that needed to be involved for this program was involved. Aside from the knee-jerk reaction of the masses, I'm not seeing the point to this...

So then how does it make sense that it's possible for the President to have his choice of Attorney Generals, Supreme Court Judges, and have his party strive to overtake Congress?


DO you understand waht I mean?

If he "owns" them ALL, waht stops him from doing anything he want? Where are the checks? Where is the due process? At waht point WOULD the President even has a person seriously threaten his with impeachment if they are all of his cronies anyway?

Do you understand waht I mean?


All of thie "spying" **** is simply an other small sliver of the manifestation of the FAilure of the System.

Oops, it seems Jonwin just can't keep his hands off my computer and has once again cause me to post as him.

His family does not have any FBI files kept on them for Anti-War or Civil Right movement protests. Actually his father was sent by his FBI office to arrest Father Daniel Berrigan, S.J. of the Catonsville Five. I'm sure Hoover would have never kept files on his own workers.

Now while his father was going after bank robbers, and the occassional draft card burner, my family was busy trying to create change in our Nation with Peaceful Protests in Washington.

ElneClare

Radical Liberal since childhood and Proud of it.

Ok. But how much of that is political posturing and how much is actual concern over the legality of what was done? Pay close attention to *who* is saying what.



Well. One of the citeria for getting a CS degree is taking a computer ethics class. Part of which covers the legality of wiretapping (since it's a pretty major issue when you're running computer systems like email to know how the law relates to what you're doing). I've written papers on electronic wiretapping and have done research on the topic. Everything from Katz to the DMCA. I'm certainly not an expert on the topic, but I'm likely more versed then the average person.



This is where I have a huge problem though. Um. The people who reviewed and authorized this program *are* "considerably more versed in the details then you or I". That's the point. We've got a program that was cleared by the white house counsel's office, the attorney general, and then greenlighted by the president. It was reviewed every 120 days by a Congressional Committee (That number is derived based on the statements of "over a dozen" reviews and some basic math).

Exactly how many more people qualified and informed on the details do there have to be Joph? How is this different from hundreds of other programs run in a similar way? Other then the fact that this one can be presented in a way so as to provoke a public outcry that is?...

What's funny is the disconnect between what you're saying and the reality of what's going on. You aren't really demanding that people who are legally qualified to make the decision about the program review it and determine its validity. That already happened. Over a dozen times. What you're *really* arguing is that we should make that determination based on public opinion. Yet, by your own statements, the masses aren't qualified or informed enough to make a valid determination of this program, right? Isn't that what you were just saying? So why then are we seeing demands for the information on this program to be made public?

Aren't you really supporting the position that we should allow those least qualified but most easily manipulated to make the determination? You know and I know that this thing will die, not because it's a bad program, but because of the public attention it now has. There's a reason we have a process for oversite for classified programs involving committees within Congress instead of public referendums on them. All this current issue is doing is damaging that process.

One of two things will happen as a result. Either we'll cripple the ability of our government to conduct and run necessary classified programs (black ones even!), or we'll force the executive branch to *actually* run secret programs that they don't tell Congress about in order to avoid this sort of thing happening down the line.


Neither of those are good things. But those who are pushing this right now are more interested in partisan attack politics then looking at the long term damage they are doing.

Edited, Tue Dec 20 20:09:21 2005 by gbaji

As a complete side note...
Didn't we have this discussion?