Bush goes on the offensive...Follow

...about eavesdropping. Linky





I don't see how they can argue the eavesdropping illegally would have, without a single doubt, stopped the 9/11 attacks.

They can say that the program is not about eavesdropping on conversations within the US, but how long until we get someone who decides to bend the rules and use the program for his own good? People can say that that would never happen, but I know that if I were in a position to, I would be sorely tempted to use the program for my own purposes.

"We're working to persuade more of our fellow Americans of the rightness of our cause," the president told abortion foes

..

"This is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens and is rooted in America's deepest principle," the president said. "And history tells us that with such a cause we will prevail."

..

"You believe, as I do, that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak, and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient," Bush told the abortion foes.

"These principles call us to defend the sick and the dying, persons with disabilities and birth defects, all who are weak and vulnerable, especially unborn children,"

Easy sailing expected for Alito ~ CNN



That is more scary than the whole wire tapping thing.

QFT

They had an episode of Penn and Teller's ********************* about something along these lines. Namely, that the powers granted (and even those not granted) naturally set themselves up to be abused.

They actually did a fairly well constructed experiment in which they placed 4 or 5 different people (one at a time) in a surveilance truck, and told them that they were expected to watch a house of a suspected domestic terrorist. While in the truck, they had full control of the hidden cameras on the outside of the truck. When they panned, they were able to see a man and a woman having an affair. The man's wife then returned home to find him in bed with the other woman. The surveillance people all had panned their camera's away from the house that was to be watched, and instead were illegally eavesdropping on the more interesting domestic events next door. While they were doing this, the "domestic terrorist" left his home and took his car.

I think it's an excellent example of how this sort of thing, even if its conceived with the best intentions, is going to be abused.

Edit: I think I found the video...
*******************************************************************************

or a direct link:
http://dl3.dumpalink.com/media/2uZDDTSwMznX/GTcXZdpPtmkm.wmv

WARNING: NOT work safe (the video is fine, but there is nudity during the experiment)

Edited, Tue Jan 24 21:56:48 2006 by scubamage

Lol. Yeah. Because I'm sure that the people selected to be on that show for that bit were all federal agents trained in surveillance who actually believed there was a real terrorist they were supposed to keep an eye on. And furthermore, I'm sure that those selected to appear on the broadcast were a representative sample (ie: you don't know if it took them 50 volunteers to get that 4 or 5 who panned the camera away and missed the "terrorist" getting away).

Can we please not try to equate a comedy skit with actual surveillance techniques? The concern in this case isn't about whether someone will pan away at a crucial moment because he saw something interesting. It's that the taps will be conducted to spy on political enemies of the administration rather then real national security risks. Which is itself silly since every tap is reviewed by the Senate intelligence commitee, which is one of the committees that has equal representation from both parties. So it's not like the Republicans can spy on the Democrats for political gain. Furthermore there's absolutely no evidence that any of the taps procured via this process so far have been anything other then exactly what the Bush administration has said (ie: actual terrorist phone calls going in or out of the country).


There is absolutely zero chance that this program will ever result in your conversation with your aunt from across town being bugged. There's pretty much zero chance that even a phone call out of the country will be (unless you're contacting Ahmed, the suspicious Arab you met on the internet who promised you a portion of an 18 million dollar inheritance if only you help him smuggle a crate of stuff out of Libya or some other silliness. Then you might actually have a very very small chance of being listened in on).


As to whether or not it could have helped prevent 9/11? That's hard to say. An increased ability to tap international calls of suspected terrorists is pretty far down the list of "critial failures" that led to 9/11. However, assuming you do have agency's paying attention, and you do have a system and structure for ensuring that suspected terrorist activities get reported to the right agency with the right mandate to actually investigate it as a national security issue (probably the biggest changes needed), then having a way to check up on those suspicions via taps on international calls made to or from those individuals certainly might help.


The question of whether it's needed as a parallel process to the existing FISA court is yet another issue...

FISA was enacted to both monitor and control authorization for wiretaps on individuals in the US suspected of being foreign agents. Specifically, it oversees wiretaps on calls originating from within the US regardless of destination. The FISA court has never had any oversight or power over wiretaps conducted by the NSA on foreign soil, even over calls placed from outside the US to someone inside the US (as long as its the other end being bugged).

The grey area here is whether FISA court approval is required to tap only calls from someone inside the US to a foreign number. Remember that in 1974 the technology did not exist to tap based on destination. You bugged a phone or line, and that was it. One can argue persuasively (and in fact this has been argued and upheld in at least two separate rulings) that FISA authorization is only requied for domestic to domestic calls. At the very least, claiming that the constitutional privacy rights of a conversation between someone in the US and someone outside the US is based on which side dialed is silly at best. If it is legal for the NSA to tap a conversation as long as one end is outside the US, it should not matter which end initiated the call.



I was referring to something else. However, as I've already pointed out, the NSA already legally has the authority to tap your conversation with someone outside the US. They just got burned so bad back in the early 70s that they imposed their own rules that were harsher then the law (not necessarily a bad thing). Interestingly enough, the 9/11 commision found that the NSA's self imposed rules regarding intercepts between foreign and domestic ends was one of the intelligence "flaws" that needed to be fixed. They had a culture of tossing out any intercepts that contained connections to US numbers and because of that ignored intelligence that might have been relevant to 9/11



Well. Since the tap lists themselves are classified, I can't. However, since the committee was briefed every 45 days on the program, I would assume it included data on who was being tapped and why. Every statement I've read from an "official source" (they're never named in the articles though) has stated the proper oversight was in place for the taps. I could dig up some quotes if you want, but honestly, if you've read even a couple articles on the subject, you've probably already seen them.



I stand corrected. That's what I get for repeating something I heard without verifying it myself. It's an 8 to 7 committee though, so I'm not sure what the big deal is. Despite common perceptions to the contrary, not every decision made in DC falls along party lines. Doubly so in a committee setting, and tripply so in one dealing with classified matters (no public pressure to follow a party line in that cse). You've got to be pretty blindly partisan to assume that all 7 Dems disagreed with the decisions on this program due to ethical and legal issues, but they were overrulled by one vote by all 8 Republcans following their "evil" party agenda.



Funny. The fact that we, the public, don't know the details hasn't stopped you from assuming the opposite though. I said there was no evidence of abuse of the program. It's being managed with oversight from the appropriate committee and was greenlighted by the White House Counsels office and the Attorney General. It was even audited and revamped by the Justice department in 2004. So yeah. In the absense of evidence to the contrary, I'm going to go with my original statement here.

On what grounds are you assuming abuses are occuring?



Heh. Love that case btw. A reasonable expectation of privacy was extended in this case because Katz was using a phone booth, so while he was in the booth and paying for its use he was "leasing" the space and could expect privacy, just as though he was in his own home. It's a great debate over whether the issue is really about "privacy" or "properyy" rights, but I don't feel like getting into all that right now.

Here's a decent article on this whole issue. Interestingly enough, the more I hear about this story the less I feel that any rights are actually being infringed upon. I think that in the end, the president's position on this will be vindicated. I also think that most of the outrage is knee-jerk reaction based on false assumptions about the program itself.




Actually, a strict constitutionalist will argue that there is nothing in that document that actually protects your privacy as an individual concept. Property is protected. Papers, documents, mail, etc, are protected. Bits of data broadcast through the air, or traveling along wires you don't own are not. Most of our concepts of privacy don't derive from legistlation, but from judicial rulings (like Katz). That's not to say they don't have power (they do), but it's incorrect to state that because precidents have built up over the decades saying one thing, that this means that the document upon which those precidents ruled has changed to match.

Furthermore, the constitution most certainly grants the president executive power, and imparts upon him the responsiblity for protecting the citezens and the state. I can certainly argue that the bill of rights would not have a provision protecting citizens from unreasonable search and seisure if it was not assumed that the executive had power to conduct such things in exception to that protection. It implies that the executive does have the power to conduct "reasonable" search and seisure upon the property of citizens and any other power that does not infringe upon that right as long as it's part of the duties of the executive (and I think preventing another 9/11 attack falls squarely within that power).

So no. I don't really agree with you on this issue either. I'm as concerned about the government snooping on citizens as anyone else. The difference is that I'm not going to assume that this program is in violation of the law unless and until it's determined that it was. Contrasted to every Liberal talking head, who automatically put the words "illegal" in front of the words "spying" or "wiretapping" whenever the subject is brought up. Who's being partisan?

Of all the stupid things you have said over the course of the last year or so, this really does take the cake. Obviously most of the people who put him in office still think he's doing a good job, dumbass.

Ummmm... you were firmly in the "Bush is Right" camp from Day One. You saying that you've been having revelations that Bush was right isn't exactly compelling material.

You never said there was no evidence of abuse; you said “no evidence that any of the taps procured via this process so far have been anything other then exactly what the Bush administration has said.” My assumption of abuse is that wiretapping a foreign agent or foreign terrorist when that agent/terrorist is communicating with a person in the United States requires a warrant based on a showing of probable cause. The Bush Administration and the AG hold that the NSA does not need to follow such a procedure. Many people, including some prominent Republicans, believe that these warrants are required. The fact that there is a program stepping around the probable cause requirements of the Constitution is evidence of abuse regardless of the good faith belief that the program is legal.

Again, what’s the big deal with retroactively getting a warrant based on probable cause when people in the United States are involved?

It can’t be accepted because Congress didn’t grant that to the President.



Then it would be easy to get a warrant based on probable cause. If no warrant is acquired, it’s in violation of the protections guaranteed by the Constitution and it is illegal.



Explicit: Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
Not many things are explicit in the Constitution. That’s why we have a Supreme Court. What is specific is the requirement for probable cause with regard to searches and seizures. What’s not is Article II, section 2 of the Constitution with regard to wiretaps. It seems to me that when one Constitutional provision is specific on a subject and another does not mention that subject, the former controls.

I don’t get it because the law says differently. The President, the White House Counsel, the Attorney General, the Justice Department, and the Senate Committee on Intelligence don’t make the laws. Thus, to make a more persuasive argument as opposed to saying “I'm going to go with the legal processess and decisions of those informed about the details of the program over the assumptions of the uninformed in this case,” you could actually look at the law.

Try checking out 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511 (2002):



Thus, FISA procedures “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance... may be conducted” regarding foreign intelligence or foreign communications. Failing to follow said procedures (stated above) constitutes illegality as contained in this 2002 Federal Statute and is punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years. Therefore, failing to act within the Constitution, FISA, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511 when conducting surveillance constitutes an abuse and is criminal. [that’s where your impeachment comes in]

FYI: The emergency provisions in FISA enumerated in 50 U.S.C. §1805(f) allow a 72 hour period to retroactively obtain the required minimum procedures regarding electronic surveillance. There is no delay. All the Attorney General needs to do is apply for the required minimum procedures. Any “backups” with the FISA court have no effect on surveillance. Furthermore, if there is a subsequent denial of the application, it’s reviewable.

People cared enough to impeach Clinton regarding whether he lied about getting a ********. Latest polls show the country split as to whether they like the idea of the government spying (or being able to) on them without a warrant. So, apparently people do care.

You've added a great deal of depth and insight to the debate. In fact, your wit shouldn't be wasted on this paltry exchange of ideas. "Your powers of deduction are exceptional. I simply can't allow you to waste them here when there are so many crimes going unsolved at this very moment. Go! go! for the good of the city!"

Shouldn't you be reviewing the latest movie, because that's what
everyone cares about?

Personally, I think this is a "Oh ****, Iraq is going fairly well! Quick, call the Liberal Mafia, tell them to bring a shovel. We need some dirt!" type of situation. I disagree with just about every line of the Patriot Act, however the liberal media's timing on expressing concern could not have come at a worse time.